Subject: Re: [perpass] Some personal thoughts on the impact of pervasive monitoring

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 12:30:55 -0600

On Oct 20, 2013 12:20 PM, "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:39:49AM -0400, Tony Rutkowski wrote:

> > Perpass falls
> > into the noise, except for generating new ideas
> > for the above actors.
>
> People who feel this way certainly have no obligation to participate
> in perpass.  :-)

But they do have such an obligation if their goal is to prevent attempts to
make pervasive surveillance harder, more expensive, or less effective.

There is a legitimate range for honest difference of opinion. Some folks
really believe the Internet is best as a giant honeypot for identifying
dissidents (or are paid to further that agenda).  People like this can be
reasonably expected to use every tool of argument and process available to
dissuade us from doing anything.

They'll tell us the effort is pointless, that it is too hard, that the
changes required are too expensive, that the overheads will be too much.
They'll call us traitors, thieves, and enablers of terrorism and child
abuse. They'll try to sap our energy with contrary argument, divert our
attention with shiny new problems, and use processes and procedures to
block progress.

But whether their opinions are honest or intentions malicious, they're just
wrong. Their agenda is inconsistent with the future of a free and open
Internet, and we must not let them stop the IETF and greater Internet
community from improving operational privacy in the face of pervasive
surveillance.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 10:36:47 -0800

> attention with shiny new problems, and use processes and procedures to

I find this to be histrionic, hyperbolic, and a distraction.  Most of
all I find it largely irrelevant, as I don't think I've seen anybody
here argue against the need to improve privacy mechanisms in IETF
technologies.  There appears to be consensus that this is the case;
I certainly haven't seen any vigorous argument to the contrary.  If
you're trying to answer people outside the IETF, this is probably the
wrong forum.

Melinda

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 12:45:44 -0600

> you're trying to answer people outside the IETF, this is probably the

Perhaps you should read more carefully.  I believe I've seen every one of
these techniques applied within the IETF community since the Snowden
revelations began focusing our attention on pervasive security.  It became
even more apparent as I read through the perpass list archive over the last
couple of days.

I might be paranoid, but that doesn't mean they're not out to get me...

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:16:45 -0500

Dean,
>
> ...
>
> But whether their opinions are honest or intentions malicious, they're 
> just wrong.
>
So your bottom line is that anyone who disagrees with your perception of 
what tradeoffs
may be appropriate for security & privacy vs. performance, user 
convenience, etc. is
"just wrong."

Nice to know it's that simple.

Steve

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:42:12 -0600

just wrong.
what tradeoffs
convenience, etc. is
> Nice to know it's that simple.

As I said, the tradeoffs are reasonably debatable.

That's a two-edged sword. Keeping the debate going, rather than delivering
real incremental progress, is the technique by which progress can most
easily be delayed.

And I believe that the currently deployed "tradeoff settings" have been
definitively proven to be out of balance. We have a reality where vast
amounts of information are undeniably being inappropriately obtained by
intermediaries. It appears that we have a consensus on this list and in the
IETF as a whole about this imbalance.

I don't trust you. I don't even trust me all that much; I know I've made
mistakes that weakened protocol security. But I hope we can make
substantial improvements despite that.

Perhaps you don't intend it this way, but it seems to me that much of your
input (as well as a few others) on this list is of the denigrating,
futility inducing sort of manipulation that has produced the current state
of disarray. I'm not suggesting that you change anything. But I would like
other readers to consider the tone of discussions here, and ask themselves
what is really being said and why. Unlike denial of service attacks on
networks, DoS attacks on motivation (deliberate, or merely driven by
accumulated frustration from grappling for many years with an intractable
problem) are rendered much less effective when recognized for what they are.

Right now we need all the motivation we can get. Ted's personal metric for
evaluating success is a good motivator. Sophistric decomposition with
attacks reducing it to the absurd is demotivational.

I'll confess that questioning of motives might well be seen as
demotivational as well. I can only respond that lancing a boil hurts, but
may allow the wound to heal faster.

--
Dean

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 23:22:08 +0000

Dean,

On 11/04/2013 10:42 PM, Dean Willis wrote:

> of disarray. 

I don't think that's appropriate, being strikingly ad-hominem.

Folks, please keep the discussion to technical issues.

Thanks,
S.

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:55:40 -0600

> Folks, please keep the discussion to technical issues.

That’s not ad-hominen. I’m not saying there’s something wrong with the given message BECAUSE of some other defect of the author.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

If I’d said “Your argument is invalid because you’re a communist, and everybody knows communists don’t know anything about bananas”, that would be an ad-hominem attack.

Rather, I’m saying that I don’t like the tone of the message itself. It’s loaded with negativity that I find disruptive to the work process. This may be entirely unintentional, in which case pointing it out might help. It might be intentional, which would lead me to suspect that there might be some other defect of the author that is causative of the behavior in question.

Now, if I just straight out asked “Why are you being so negative?”, that would be a loaded question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

And properly categorizing insults is definitely a technical issue.

—
Dean

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 21:46:00 -0500

I would like to support Dean's ability to express his views
here. This list seems to have from the outset been as much
about catharsis than technology. The IETF has had a long
history along these lines. Occasionally useful things happen.

A certain amount of amusement also helps deal with the
frictions engendered by the obvious considerable disparity
of perspectives and views.

--tony

On 11/4/2013 7:55 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
> Rather, I’m saying that I don’t like the tone of the message itself. 
> It’s loaded with negativity that I find disruptive to the work 
> process. This may be entirely unintentional, in which case pointing it 
> out might help. It might be intentional, which would lead me to 
> suspect that there might be some other defect of the author that is 
> causative of the behavior in question.
>

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:24:38 -0500

Dean,
> That's not ad-hominen. I'm not saying there's something wrong with the 
> given message BECAUSE of some other defect of the author.
Some "other defect?" Somebody does not know how to play well with others.
> Rather, I'm saying that I don't like the tone of the message itself. 
> It's loaded with negativity that I find disruptive to the work 

IETF WG (and BoF) lists enable individuals to express opinions, bot 
positive and negative,
about technical topics under discussion. Such exchanges facilitate 
improvement of proposals
being put forth, as advocates are encouraged to address concerns raised 
by those who may
not be convinced of the proposals put forth. Your comments suggest that 
no one should be
allowed to disagree with your position, because the resulting negativism 
impairs your aura.
Moreover, you ascribe malicious intent to such disagreements, because no 
reasonable individual could disagree with you?

Get over it.

Steve