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

"Christian Huitema" <huitema@huitema.net> Sun, 08 December 2013 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
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 6DC4B1AE47E for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 17:57:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
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 sPC1szwIE4p4 for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 17:57:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xsmtp11.mail2web.com (xsmtp11.mail2web.com [168.144.250.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC66A1AE172 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 17:57:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.5.2.49] (helo=xmail11.myhosting.com) by xsmtp11.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1VpTcp-0001dJ-Qy for perpass@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Dec 2013 20:57:40 -0500
Received: (qmail 9583 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2013 01:57:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO HUITEMA5) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[24.16.156.113]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail11.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <perpass@ietf.org>; 8 Dec 2013 01:57:38 -0000
From: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@huitema.net>
To: "'perpass'" <perpass@ietf.org>
References: <52A3B32D.8000301@perens.com> <52A3B8A4.6000309@perens.com>
In-Reply-To: <52A3B8A4.6000309@perens.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 17:57:37 -0800
Message-ID: <130f01cef3b8$df9885d0$9ec99170$@huitema.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQJkQ5KX8GOB7Lj9e87y7WTUvGmsIwJAdTJMmQziHnA=
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [perpass] Fwd: Re: 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: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 01:57:46 -0000

> We can't have encryption when we use HTTP over Amateur Radio in the US and
many
> other countries. There is self-policing on ham frequencies that requires
that people be 
> able to copy other people's transmissions, and encryption defeats that.
Obviously we
> don't put confidential data on those frequencies, that belongs on your
cell phone. So, an 
> authentication-only WiFi protocol is needed for Amateur Radio, and
possibly an
> authentication-only version of TLS.

I for one cannot see why we would deliberately sabotage the security of the
entire Internet just to enable amateur radio to conveniently use Internet
applications and protocols. 

The amateur radio restrictions are very much the same restrictions that
hampered the security of other Internet links before crypto was deregulated
in the 90's. Governments  used the power of regulation and licensing to
ensure that these restrictions were kept in place for amateur radio. That's
too bad, but we should not make the whole Internet insecure just to please
the radio amateurs.

-- Christian Huitema