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

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 05 December 2013 00:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38B511AE1A9 for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:21:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17MQDbfPSM8n for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:21:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59AF41AE16F for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:21:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FFDD2380384; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 19:21:43 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 19:21:41 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Bruce Perens <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: perpass <>
Subject: Re: [perpass] 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 00:21:50 -0000

On Dec 4, 2013, at 7:16 PM, Bruce Perens <> wrote:
> My main concerns are that this will harm the operation of the Internet and take away user choice.

Okay, there are two very definite statements.   You should be able to give examples.

If your example for user choice is "a person in a country with a repressive government will not have choice," that's not good enough, because they already lack choice due to their government—it's not something we have the power to do anything about.

If your example for "harm the operation of the internet" is transparent caching, that point has been answered: define a protocol for caching that is not transparent, and allow the incentive structure around end users who benefit from that caching to motivate them to use it, rather than simply forcing them to use it in their own best interest.

Indeed, this precisely addresses the needs of users in the first case, since their government can simply require them to go through the non-transparent cache.   They will know they are being watched, the government will be able to watch them, and they will be able to access any content they feel safe accessing in the awareness that they are being watched as they do so.   Everybody wins, for some value of "win."