Re: [perpass] Commnets on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00 was RE: perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01

Josh Howlett <> Thu, 05 December 2013 12:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58EA61ADF9D; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 04:28:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W0TrAT5olB2v; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 04:28:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA3301ADF8D; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 04:28:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by localhost (Email Security Appliance) with SMTP id 3ED211AF3061_2A07180B; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:28:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "", Issuer "TERENA SSL CA" (verified OK)) by (Sophos Email Appliance) with ESMTPS id E42AA1AF3053_2A0717FF; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:28:47 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ([]) by EXC001 ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:28:46 +0000
From: Josh Howlett <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
Thread-Topic: Commnets on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00 was RE: perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01
Thread-Index: AQHO8TzpP5tlkNSKykiLz/9Jsx4RUZpEodCAgADJ2QCAAAbtgIAAFfcA
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:28:45 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: perpass <>, IETF Discussion <>
Subject: Re: [perpass] Commnets on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00 was RE: perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The perpass list is for IETF discussion of pervasive monitoring. " <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 12:28:56 -0000

Hi Stephen,

I absolutely agree that the technical work is necessary, but it is not

The political environment controls the legal and regulatory environment
within which CEOs, their lawyers, and the other minions whose role is to
minimise corporate risk exposure, take the decisions on which products and
services reach the market.

The technical community can obviously choose to do the work regardless,
but in the absence of conformant products and services it runs the risk of
being a paper exercise.

I am sympathetic to your argument that the technical work could happen in
advance of policy, but that hands the advantage to the adversary who can
use this intelligence to advance blocking political measures.

I also agree that it is unfortunate that none of the numerous acronyms
that claim to have a remit in Internet policy are working with the
technical community. In the majority of the capitols of Europe there is
clearly a political appetite to roll pervasive monitoring back, and these
acronyms would be pushing on an open door (and, in fairness, perhaps they
already are but it is not obvious to the outside world). It is not far
from Geneva to Brussels...


On 05/12/2013 11:09, "Stephen Farrell" <> wrote:

>On 12/05/2013 10:53 AM, Josh Howlett wrote:
>> I fully support action to increase security, where it responds to the
>> prevailing threat environment. But it will be a perpetuation of the
>> naivety that has characterised this debate to think that this alone will
>> halt pervasive monitoring, because the threat is not technical in
>Personally, I think anyone using the argument that "you can't solve
>the problem therefore do nothing" is talking about the same amount
>of nonsense as anyone who says "the IETF can halt pervasive monitoring."
>You don't quite say either of those above, but neither do you
>acknowledge that the draft in question, and all the sensible discussion
>(which is far from all the discussion;-) around that fully acknowledges
>that the technical things that can and should be done are only part
>of the story.
>> The technical response must be coordinated with a political response, or
>> else the perpetrators will find political means to route around the
>> technical measures.
>I disagree with "must be coordinated" for various reasons.
>Given the time it takes for us to do our part, which is measured
>in years before we get good deployment, imposing a requirement
>to start with coordination would mean doing nothing ever.
>Secondly, with whom would we coordinate? Again, trying to impose
>a requirement for coordination with a non-existent Internet-wide
>political entity is tantamount to doing nothing.
>If some other folks outside the IETF are working on the same
>issues that'll be good or bad, and for some such activities it'll
>be useful for us to know about and consider them. And maybe it'll
>be useful for others to know what we're up to, but we should
>not wait.
>> The political response shouldn't be organised within the IETF, but it
>> need to liaise with those responsible for doing that.
>"The" political response? You expect only one? Again, I don't
>think we should hang around waiting - we should document the
>consensus from Vancouver and then follow that through in our
>normal work within working groups and elsewhere - considering
>threats, including this one, as we develop protocols.
>> Unfortunately I am
>> not observing any movement by any of the other parties within our
>> wonderful multi-stakeholder system that you would think would be
>> notionally responsible for this. My fear is that they are opting to
>> the technology Kool-Aid, to avoid grasping the political nettle. That is
>> what should be concerning us right now.
>Fully disagree. Its us should be grasping nettles and working
>to improve the security and privacy properties of our protocols.

Janet(UK) is a trading name of Jisc Collections and Janet Limited, a 
not-for-profit company which is registered in England under No. 2881024 
and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG. VAT No. 614944238