Re: [saag] Ubiquitous Encryption: content filtering

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 19 June 2015 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79951AC431 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 pBnp2o9cZZo1 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89BD11AC42D for <saag@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED82BE88; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 17:46:10 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4OmXq0vQMjpB; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 17:46:09 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [192.168.3.222] (173-8-161-213-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.8.161.213]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6CEDBE80; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 17:45:56 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <55844743.4030300@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 17:45:55 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Smith, Kevin, (R&D) Vodafone Group" <Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com>, Natasha Rooney <nrooney@gsma.com>
References: <99DC814A-2B7D-4802-A1C7-399E77F37BD7@gsma.com> <CABtrr-U9kLfq4GQbWSgPN=wCD=Cdi0uQ+bQqXj35j+PFtuE8Pg@mail.gmail.com> <A4BAAB326B17CE40B45830B745F70F108E070156@VOEXM17W.internal.vodafone.com>
In-Reply-To: <A4BAAB326B17CE40B45830B745F70F108E070156@VOEXM17W.internal.vodafone.com>
OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/AI-8W3FVebjUDVJilrAgpDdzO5Q>
Cc: "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [saag] Ubiquitous Encryption: content filtering
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:46:14 -0000

Hi Kevin, Natasha,

On 19/06/15 15:07, Smith, Kevin, (R&D) Vodafone Group wrote:
> Indeed, it is possible to filter at the endpoint. However, a mobile
> operator utilising licenced spectrum must adhere to regulations set
> by the government licensor, which include content filtering, or risk
> fines/licence suspension.

Just to note that IETF is not in the same position as mobile operators
here. Please see RFC 2804 for a good example of that kind of difference
(but note 2804 deals with a different topic).

That's not to say what the IETF consensus on such filtering/censorship
might or might not be - I don't think we've asked and I expect there'd
be a robust debate if we do, as there was for 2804.

So even if thing-X is required by some local regulator, that does not
by itself mean that the IETF needs to care about thing-X.

I'm sure this is familiar to many long time IETF participants, but it
may well not be commonly understood by some others who would consider
the argument Kevin makes above as a winning argument.

Cheers,
S.

PS: The mailing list archive for discussion that lead to 2804 is still
around [1] and many of the arguments made then would still be relevant
were we to delve further into this topic, or any other local-regulator
vs. big-I Internet type thing.

[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/raven/current/maillist.html