Re: [perpass] perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01

"Andreas Kuckartz" <a.kuckartz@ping.de> Fri, 06 December 2013 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <a.kuckartz@ping.de>
X-Original-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 353391AE34C for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 03:31:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.849
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2=2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mqhPcsIwyQER for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 03:31:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lilly.ping.de (lilly.ping.de [83.97.42.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D51B91AE352 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 03:31:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 15998 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2013 11:31:11 -0000
Received: (ofmipd 83.97.42.23); 6 Dec 2013 11:30:49 -0000
Received: from 85-22-27-195.ip.dokom21.de ([85.22.27.195] helo=127.0.0.1) by lucy.ping.de with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <a.kuckartz@ping.de>) id 1Votck-0006zR-3L; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 12:31:10 +0100
Date: 6 Dec 2013 12:30:56 +0100
Message-ID: <52A1B570.7000205@ping.de>
From: "Andreas Kuckartz" <a.kuckartz@ping.de>
To: "SM" <sm@resistor.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <E2DA1477-C86E-441E-A33D-D47A0D67AFF3@iab.org> <EF9BD1E4-6EF3-4035-AC4E-1A2D3CADE615@mnot.net> <529E8494.7000806@perens.com> <20131204111309.GB11727@nic.fr> <529F61D8.6030105@perens.com> <20131204171207.GC19914@thunk.org> <529F63C0.3040804@perens.com> <529F88AC.3090904@appelbaum.net> <529F90A0.8000706@perens.com> <529F9205.30906@appelbaum.net> <529F98C0.9090808@perens.com> <529F9F14.8050805@appelbaum.net> <529FB61A.7090604@perens.com> <529FBEF9.7030205@appelbaum.net> <529FC347.3080806@perens.com> <52A15835.2070901@cis-india.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20131206000507.0bdb7c20@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20131206000507.0bdb7c20@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: perpass@ietf.org, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org>, Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>
Subject: Re: [perpass] perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01
X-BeenThere: perpass@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The perpass list is for IETF discussion of pervasive monitoring. " <perpass.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass/>
List-Post: <mailto:perpass@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 11:31:18 -0000

SM:
> I read
> http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indias-big-brother-the-central-monitoring-system
> There are likely similar cases in other countries.
> 
> What could be the effect if (widely deployed) IETF protocols prevented
> such systems from working?  It is possible to design a protocol which
> does not allow "in the clear" traffic [1].  It is not clear whether such
> a protocol would be widely deployed.

Jörg Ziercke, the president of the German Federal Criminal Office (BKA)
three weeks ago suggested to restrict the right to use Tor by requiring
the registration of users.

Standards can not solve such political and legal attempts to attack the
privacy and security of users.

But that should not prevent the development of standards which disable
mass surveillance when those standards are deployed.

Cheers,
Andreas