IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> Wed, 04 December 2013 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <bruce@perens.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 307401AE2EA for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:09:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.722
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, 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 6YUbOaiQoUgw for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:09:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alchemy.perens.com (alchemy.perens.com [206.221.219.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB561AE2E7 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:09:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.18.131] (mail.a10networks.com [12.207.16.167]) by alchemy.perens.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24A2350008A; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:09:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <529F61D8.6030105@perens.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 09:09:44 -0800
From: Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
References: <E2DA1477-C86E-441E-A33D-D47A0D67AFF3@iab.org> <EF9BD1E4-6EF3-4035-AC4E-1A2D3CADE615@mnot.net> <529E8494.7000806@perens.com> <20131204111309.GB11727@nic.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20131204111309.GB11727@nic.fr>
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: perpass@ietf.org
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 17:09:50 -0000

On 12/04/2013 03:13 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
But the Internet is international. My surveillance (not me, personally, but because it monitors everyone) by the NSA is certainly illegal in my country. Whether or not it is legal in the USA is irrelevant to me. Therefore, any technical measure against it is fair game.
France and the US are partners in NATO, and there are conflicting reports regarding France's participation in something called ECHELON.

The potential is that you could be giving aid and comfort to "the enemy" by constructing a technical hinderance to intelligence gathering by your own national intelligence agency or by your country's intelligence partners. It looks from here that this falls under the later paragraphs of France's penal code definition of treason.

IMO this is reason to be careful.
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.

    Thanks

    Bruce

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email