Probably not a shared goal. State surveillance has been a "mandate" since the inception of communications - postal, long before electronic. Essentially ever nation engages in it. Most users don't care. Some welcome it. Few users will pay the price or accept the contraints to mitigate it. Even fewer providers will go out of business to avoid it. In most instances involving individuals, the State threat represents a far less a danger than other actors. The obvious exceptions are industrial espionage and cyberwarfare.
The paranoid should climb inside a sealed mu-metal box with a Faraday shield around it and never exit. --tony On 10/10/2013 3:09 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Going back to a mail from Yoav a few weeks ago - we're not trying to prevent state surveillance, but we would like to make it more expensive so Yoav isn't on the list of folks that they can afford to surveil. Assuming we share that description as a goal, (do we?) what other kind of folks do you think we might need to make progress on that?
_______________________________________________ perpass mailing list perpass@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
