On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 5:40 PM, mark seiden <m...@seiden.com> wrote: > opt *out* of… (obviously) Not possible in many cases. I don't like IM but I have to use it on occasions for my job.
Ditto for license agreements from handset manufacturers, carriers, operating systems, business software and the like. "How Corporations Affect Us Directly," http://www.polisci.ccsu.edu/trieb/ecocon.htm: "The services of these companies are so necessary in conducting business - and, in fact, in just functioning - in the world today that we have to go along with their rules." Jeff > On May 18, 2013, at 2:38 PM, mark seiden <m...@seiden.com> wrote: > >> except bad guys will always opt of having their content inspected. >> >> so it just doesn't work in this case. >> >> >> >> On May 18, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Jeffrey Walton <noloa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 1:24 PM, mark seiden <m...@seiden.com> wrote: >>>> ... >>>> there are numerous other IM systems that are server centric and do a lot >>>> of work >>>> to look for and filter "bad" urls sent in the message stream. >>>> >>>> this is intended to be for the benefit of the users in filtering spam, >>>> phishing, malware links, >>>> particularly those that spread virally through buddy lists of taken over >>>> accounts. >>>> sometimes these links (when believed to be malicious) are simply (and >>>> silently) not >>>> forwarded to the receiving user. >>>> >>>> this involves databases of link and site reputation, testing of new links, >>>> velocity and >>>> acceleration measurements, etc. the usual spam filtering technology. >>>> >>>> my impression is that almost all users thank us for doing that job of >>>> keeping them safe. >>>> they understand that IM is yet another channel for transmitting spam. >>>> >>>> the url filtering is aggressive enough (and unreliable enough) in some >>>> cases that >>>> you have to check with your counterparty in conversation if they got that >>>> link you >>>> just sent. so users are aware of it, if only as an annoyance. (once >>>> again, spam filtering >>>> gets in the way of productive communication) >>>> >>>> i am merely telling you how it is. obviously user expectations differ on >>>> AIM, Yahoo Messenger, >>>> etc. from those of users on Skype, some of whom believe there is magic >>>> fairy dust sprinkled on it, and that >>>> it is easier to use than something else with OTR as a plugin. >>> Perhaps the user should be given a choice. >>> >>> The security dialog could have three mutually exclusive choices: >>> >>> * Scan IM messages for dangerous content from everyone. This means >>> <company> will read (and possibly retain) all of your messages to >>> determine if some (or all) of the message is dangerous. >>> >>> * Scan IM messages for dangerous content from people you don't know. >>> This means <company> will read (and possibly retain) some of your >>> messages to determine if some (or all) of the message is dangerous. >>> >>> * Don't scan IM messages for dangerous content . This means only you >>> and the sender will read your messages. >>> >>> Give an choice, it seems like selection two is a good balance. _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
