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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 04 December 2013 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 C384F1AE0F8 for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:15:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FxDZVspCm_8X for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:15:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83BD41AE006 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:15:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (c-174-62-147-182.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [174.62.147.182]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CB352380384; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:15:21 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <529F61D8.6030105@perens.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:15:20 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <170058A1-2D65-44E9-9319-47AD1F5D8202@fugue.com>
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>
To: Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: perpass <perpass@ietf.org>, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 23:15:29 -0000

On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> wrote:
>> Is there a serious comparison somewhere about the relative cost of encryption when we routinely access HD video files? I am not sure at all that encryption is the main cost.
> I'm sure it isn't. The point is just about unnecessary waste.

I don't know if you missed this or just don't consider it important, but essentially every video stream coming from a streaming video provider that is streaming copyrighted entertainment is encrypted.   The volume of encrypted data traversing the internet in streams of this type vastly outweighs the entirety of all traffic of the type that the IETF is currently talking about encrypting for privacy reasons.