Re: [VIPR] VIPR privacy issue

[Marc Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 01/27/2012 07:08 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
> <hat type="geopriv"/>
> 
> Could we please distinguish between "location privacy" and "IP address 
> privacy"?  They are related, but distinct concepts.

Yeah, my mistake.  I thought that Cullen was responding to my concern about IP
address privacy in his email to p2psip.

This said, I think that adding one hop to hide the IP address is not enough,
and I believe that onion routing is the way to go to solve the IP address
privacy - which may or may not also solve the location privacy problem.

The interesting part is that business goals are, in this particular case,
aligned with privacy advocates.

In any case, even if Cullen was talking about something different, I do not
think that the dates he provided are wrong.

> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 26, 2012, at 7:28 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:53 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>> 
>>> Cullen's email in P2PSIP was unambiguous in saying that doing this
>>> will push VIPR to 2015/2020.
>> 
>> That is not at all what I said. The 2020 was a date where I think we
>> might be possible to have a location privacy solution. As folks may
>> recall from the BOFs when P2PSIP was formed, Cisco had expressed that one
>> of these cases it was interested in was when the communications were not
>> at all anonymous but the location needed to be. The example used as Vice
>> President of the US during an emergency may be moved to a location that
>> is kept very secret but they need to communicate security and with
>> authentication to a large number of people. Todays internet protocols
>> don't offer much in the form of location privacy - with the possible
>> exception of TOR. Some person with General in their title even showed up
>> at Vancouver and Prague IETFs. When P2PSIP got chartered, location
>> privacy got drooped out because it was viewed as it would just be too
>> much to solve. I think I argued for doing location privacy at the time
>> but I was wrong - it clearly would have been too much to do in the first
>> version.
>> 
>> However, I still hope that we might have a standards based location
>> privacy system by 2020 but others think it is better to do this type of
>> thing just a a proprietary system so who knows.



- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Personal email: [e-mail]
Professional email: [e-mail]
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPIsB7AAoJECnERZXWan7EnAAQAMR/u2bdaWVmZ9yJMgbwkaR0
a90eVoqftISpEKNlK6vHPGsGmPo3R28Gaysbk2y+ssxVIVV5rlC6mdKq7XUjPrqa
akumo5S/hGRZ0ZINvG/HSYkCOQP1yyBJqlXFDa+ZTy2hsxJc9eKcrUxCGYVTzok2
yZjrM0ZknfAE4cEd3Xra2LUOQqLx4KQ7TFvtR/+Kn+tldi0bSe7b3CLDKZNAR17X
bOLDil+YtJE+PQmPtF7OMkj7InoVXaH0nCJLpxagAskBaNYyW4UPKc3MjSOMw2OM
WSlz1FK3OeTv4vrcjz/lsseYk4FBIPGXVdy+AxYBrjfxsuKUfayTEK4DM8Z9SD2f
fvSO4cwiWbxfuBvN6KSgmv1cDYEHTLDT4I5rlu4sAAqpPNQc8NM9TGlDdvLMYACq
9XLb7VUdUggXL/MwENIEno6VzT1fh2k6blxuIeS2Asb6CYLbBzlB9xwNRyphjZHM
pPZzs3U/eDMflwerX8I3y88oNleIKJHWsJbyO5lJZLr3adwFVCggZ5uOvsi60NK7
xoR+H9yNRBx5TFr72f1OeGYNjOriIHk6hJ55TtvP0sJiNtnoRFsMJOzZsMgWGPdO
D8rWy1t4NVi7RkP+c/wmsWQw/gPxeTawFaZIa0tkex7hI0rJ8QDcENZqX06iMYcn
LRSBEHfBzoHJnhdp1qgc
=YLG2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----