Re: [secdir] Some observations that may be of interest

Hector Santos <sant9442@gmail.com> Tue, 10 November 2009 03:11 UTC

Return-Path: <secdir-bounces@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 558BA28C0EA for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:11:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.422
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, X_IP=3.177]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id niDuglI7NVW5 for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:11:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pch.mit.edu (PCH.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.90]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F3D328C0D7 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:11:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pch.mit.edu (pch.mit.edu [127.0.0.1]) by pch.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id nAA3C9PO010151 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 22:12:09 -0500
Received: from pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.83]) by pch.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id nAA3C87Y010148 for <secdir@PCH.mit.edu>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 22:12:08 -0500
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-3.MIT.EDU [18.9.25.14]) by pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.9.2) with ESMTP id nAA3BiB0000122 for <secdir@mit.edu>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 22:12:13 -0500 (EST)
X-AuditID: 1209190e-b7b50ae000006a07-43-4af8d9f0d516
Received: from mail-yx0-f163.google.com (mail-yx0-f163.google.com [209.85.210.163]) by (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id 66.20.27143.0F9D8FA4; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 22:11:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: by yxe35 with SMTP id 35so8846201yxe.2 for <secdir@mit.edu>; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:11:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:x-sender:x-apparently-to :mime-version:received:date:in-reply-to:x-ip:references:user-agent :x-http-useragent:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:reply-to :sender:precedence:x-google-loop:mailing-list:list-id:list-post :list-help:list-unsubscribe:x-beenthere-env:x-beenthere; bh=RGV2N4emWNrzM+HEP9KLi8LuINT1dXNjlSMZZzspU/I=; b=ZxnSxq+8u4au0ODTOMQ4wVZFSAR+t3ySTS/CVOKzfGmrNwUFVlFj7bDqxBN49heglk 4J46ep3ziOrW+Ufk3qFLoo3oM+/ntqYdvk+ZS0TXXtQfyf4CDDCn9vXwg5LJ/oac/9WW xfRRPjCWmGEO1ch47D49J8rFIg/aRqs4XVt3k=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-sender:x-apparently-to:mime-version:date:in-reply-to:x-ip :references:user-agent:x-http-useragent:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:reply-to:sender:precedence:x-google-loop:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-unsubscribe:x-beenthere-env :x-beenthere; b=cPsvIjksFNuIv+z7mu3TTle/42g/zqUOGbqMOV3q4gSkdJk0WxkGTWNU0ig1762YF9 vBHwA2Be1VMjND0yamokVaX3TqK3trNZSdcf69uiQpW29xcXQMSIiKI+j8qwh/Uk3j6y y+82M88pcK6b3y6Of99bJuuOhEloG5YxqCx20=
Received: by 10.90.10.19 with SMTP id 19mr108581agj.9.1257822704317; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:11:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.176.235.29 with SMTP id i29gr41yqh.0; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:11:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: sant9442@gmail.com
X-Apparently-To: ietf-smart-grid@googlegroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.39.39 with SMTP id m39mr31908ybm.9.1257822694922; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:11:34 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:11:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4AF84BC2.7040606@tana.it>
X-IP: 99.3.147.93
References: <a123a5d60911090657v29272bfan8632600678c637f0@mail.gmail.com> <4AF8447D.4010905@santronics.com> <4AF84BC2.7040606@tana.it>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20070508 Firefox/1.5.0.12 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <ef535ed5-245e-47d1-9573-1d06e7a4c061@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
From: Hector Santos <sant9442@gmail.com>
To: IETF Smart Grid <ietf-smart-grid@googlegroups.com>
Precedence: bulk
X-Google-Loop: groups
Mailing-List: list ietf-smart-grid@googlegroups.com; contact ietf-smart-grid+owner@googlegroups.com
X-BeenThere-Env: ietf-smart-grid@googlegroups.com
X-BeenThere: ietf-smart-grid@googlegroups.com
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAABBGXKsERly2FEZfZvxGX6dE=
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42
X-BeenThere: secdir@mit.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: secdir-bounces@mit.edu
Errors-To: secdir-bounces@mit.edu
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:16:55 -0800
Subject: Re: [secdir] Some observations that may be of interest
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf-smart-grid@googlegroups.com
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:11:45 -0000

On Nov 9, 12:05 pm, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
> Hector Santos wrote:

> There is a difference between sharing information and being battery
> farmed. However big that difference may seem, it is also subtle. I'm
> not sure how much the people are willing to discern between industry
> goals and their own, world's citizens goals. We need that distinction,
> for the sake of democracy. I think the Privacy Impact Assessment
> should be thoroughly carried out and result in policy recommendations
> aimed at enabling users to share what they deem correct, with no
> penalizations nor forcing.

+1, the concern I have is the level of vendor PIA compliance and will
there be a consumer choice?  I mean, its not like the customer really
has a choose in agreeing with a home energy TOS :)  Unless of course,
with the Smart Grid comes energy provider competition (Enron anyone?)
and collusion isn't an issue.

Catching up with some of IETF draft documents, what came to mind is
maybe a possible need to provide a set of Smart Grid Device (SGD)
design principles.  Half joking, I came up with:

First law of Smart Grid Dynamics:  Smart Grid Devices (SGD) must not
create nor consume more energy than it is designed to save or
optimize.

So if a vendor device is doing much more than it is required for
"Smart Grid",  this distinction can possible serve as a basis of
separation for PII (Persionally Identifable Information) user optional
feedback.  We might also wish to develop a way to measure the impact
of application level SGDs which might lead to:

Second law of Smart Grid Dynamics:  Smart Grid Devices (SGD) must not
create entropy in the network.

That might suggest to not be overzealous with message notification
ideas.

--
HLS


_______________________________________________
secdir mailing list
secdir@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/secdir