Subject: Re: [perpass] Howdy!

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:35:49 -0600

Pardon the delay. Things got busy.

I intended no attack; I mean that since we (participants in the IETF and
other standards bodies) are now "suspects" in the debasing of standards,
that we need to be fully prepared to answer these sorts of questions.
Remember that when suspicion reigns, it's not the questions (or answers)
that get you. It's the mere fact of having been questioned that drags you
down.

We cannot afford even the least suspicion of having been co-opted by a
nation-state or comparable security apparat.

But it's not feasible for all of us to have perfect alibis, and potential
motives abound.

Better yet, if we have mechanisms in place that are obviously resistant to
such manipulations. Then we have no reason to fear the Inquisition. Or to
fear that they may be among us.

--
Dean
 On Oct 8, 2013 4:05 PM, "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> On 09/13/2013 06:12 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
> > Yeah, that's an ad hominem attack .
>
> Oops. Sorry Steve, my fault for not noticing that in Dean's
> mail from a few weeks ago. Dean, please desist from ad-hominen
> attacks.
>
> And I figure this particular thread has run its course in
> terms of being productive. (A new thread on the issue of
> MTI vs mandatory-to-use-or-similar would be interesting
> though.)
>
> Thanks,
> S.
>
>
>
>
>

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:42:18 -0600

On Oct 8, 2013 1:30 PM, "Stephen Kent" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Dean,
>
> Here are responses to your comments:
>
>
>
> Too bad. We can try to minimize the impact, but a net that gets you
killed because
> the wrong person heard you say the wrong thing is worse than one with
slightly less bandwidth or temporal QoS.”
>
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand the context of your assertion re use of deadly
force. I assume you don't
> mean to suggest that many/most Internet users are in physical jeopardy as
a result of nation state surveillance, right? Is your argument that every
user of the Internet should incur performance and convenience penalties to
provide cover for the very, very tiny fraction of users who are in real,
physical jeopardy as a result of such surveillance? I don’t think that
those of us who develop Internet standards are in a position to make such
tradeoffs.

I mean to suggest that enough Internet users are, or will become, in
physical jeopardy as a result of their Internet use that we have a moral
and ethical responsibility to design the protocols of the Internet so as to
reasonably minimize that danger, even if it does have costs for all other
users of the Internet.

The extent to which we find the tradeoff reasonable is open to discussion,
but I believe we're currently being excessively miserly with our support.

-- 
Dean