Re: [perpass] politics and the ietf

SM <> Thu, 05 December 2013 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E03B1AD6D1 for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 00:24:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JqyuLImrHKQJ for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 00:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7919B1AC7F3 for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 00:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB58ODn2010344; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 00:24:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1386231858; bh=ao5EN98DY8aHlSItQ3BnXxPt/USO0ilqOg2VjGUfnnQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=QZAoLUWUTcNsaV5Tq4OD6xXRce3vx7A6N4qhCn0TbAcBoz/tlxAv6BMGSEpu1Ycws f9mGgARlhjp6+VT28Rij/WD84m+Jnzs4Tpw9jbYnXG42AKeaeGtaWGa+hE5+n6Tfsy ZQ7u6mSKY4PuuWyLkQC/hAFGervxzrZqZtwzHHek=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1386231858;; bh=ao5EN98DY8aHlSItQ3BnXxPt/USO0ilqOg2VjGUfnnQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=bqnKNCb1nTd9iRhM4O90J5YYWbEBBkUyMQNQHliPEv35HAn6vPx3jQmASUJIPuedG /VyGtIJHlbeAeS1tRrt2Yw/DfYSKwdrYLfnAmionfAts0H7WUEv3iQ1GKZPngUW0xC FDjhMY+oNVZc44oiVcE7U2el+YgTtThfun+TnWrM=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 00:21:36 -0800
To: Elijah Sparrow <>
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <20131205072546.2740.2142915422.0@crow>
References: <20131205072546.2740.2142915422.0@crow>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [perpass] politics and the ietf
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 08:24:24 -0000

Hi Elijah,
At 23:25 04-12-2013, Elijah Sparrow wrote:
>There was once a time when the design of a protocol or standard 
>could be done in a manner that benefited nearly everyone who might 
>be touched by it. These days are surely past. Nearly every single 
>debate or question that has come up on this list is deeply 
>political, if for no other reason than whatever decisions are made 
>will create winners and losers, people who benefit from the choice 
>and people who are harmed by the choice.


>In this context, the question of "how much encryption" is a 
>technical question that is also deeply intertwined with the major 
>political debates of our day. One only has to note the major 
>headlines around the world about the ietf calls for encryption in 
>http 2.0. How often have ietf meetings garnered such global coverage?

My guess is that it was the first time.  The coverage wasn't that 
global.  The approach would likely be more nuanced than what has been reported.