On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Paul Wouters p...@cypherpunks.ca wrote:
snip
Note that decentralising makes you less anonymous. If everyone runs
their own jabber service with TLS and OTR, you are less anonymous than
today. So decentralising is not a solution on its own for meta-data
tracking.
On 21 September 2013 06:02, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Brian,
At 21:54 19-09-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I got my arm slightly twisted to produce the attached: a simple
concatenation of some of the actionable suggestions made in the
discussion of PRISM and Bruce Schneier's call for
On 22/09/2013, at 1:08 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:
Mark Nottingham wrote:
Then, protocols not have any authoritative specification and
should never be standardized and there should be no central
authority to manage different versions of the protocols.
From
From: Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net
Except that essentially all services other than email have gained
popularity in centralized form, including IM. So there appear to be
some important and difficult operational and usability barriers,
standing in the way of more truly
--On Sunday, 22 September, 2013 07:02 -0400 Noel Chiappa
j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
...
Yes. $$$. Nobody makes much/any money off email because it is
so de-centralized. People who build wonderful new applications
build them in a centralized way so that they can control them.
And they
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
2) Encourage distributed services over centralized services. For
example, social networking services today are heavily centralized.
+1
Except that essentially all services other than email have gained popularity
in centralized form, including IM.
Yes. $$$. Nobody makes much/any money off email because it is
so de-centralized. People who build wonderful new applications
build them in a centralized way so that they can control them.
And they want to control them so that they can monetize them.
That is even true of the large email
I like what Christian said. Also, perhaps we should figure out how to
unbundle services and monetize what we can.
On Sep 22, 2013 1:38 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
Yes. $$$. Nobody makes much/any money off email because it is
so de-centralized. People who build wonderful
--On Sunday, 22 September, 2013 17:37 + Christian Huitema
huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
...
It is very true that innovation can only be sustained with a
revenue stream. But we could argue that several services have
now become pretty much standardized, with very little
additional
On 9/22/13 11:35 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
I like what Christian said. Also, perhaps we should figure out how to
unbundle services and monetize what we can.
On Sep 22, 2013 1:38 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com
mailto:huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
Yes. $$$. Nobody makes
--On Sunday, 22 September, 2013 12:59 -0400 Paul Wouters
p...@cypherpunks.ca wrote:
Except that essentially all services other than email have
gained popularity in centralized form, including IM.
Note that decentralising makes you less anonymous. If everyone
runs
their own jabber
Jari,
It is important to understand the limitations of technology in this
discussion. We can improve communications security, and in some cases
reduce the amount information communicated. But we cannot help a
situation where you are communicating with a party that you cannot
entirely trust with
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
I got my arm slightly twisted to produce the attached: a simple
concatenation of some of the actionable suggestions made in the
discussion of PRISM and Bruce Schneier's call for action.
There are one thing I
On 09/21/2013 02:42 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
I got my arm slightly twisted to produce the attached: a simple
concatenation of some of the actionable suggestions made in the
discussion of PRISM and Bruce
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
On 09/21/2013 02:42 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
snip
There are one thing I don't see mention in your draft, the discussion
that moved from ietf@ and over into lisp@ about encryption by default
wherever it's
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 09/21/2013 02:42 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
I got my arm slightly twisted to produce the attached: a simple
concatenation of some of the actionable suggestions
Mark Nottingham wrote:
Then, protocols not have any authoritative specification and
should never be standardized and there should be no central
authority to manage different versions of the protocols.
From a PRISM viewpoint, the cost of parsing different formats,
understanding different
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 9:55 PM
To: IETF discussion list
Subject: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00.txt]
I got my arm slightly twisted
I got my arm slightly twisted to produce the attached: a simple
concatenation of some of the actionable suggestions made in the
discussion of PRISM and Bruce Schneier's call for action.
Brian,
This is a useful summary, but I would like to see a few additions:
1) Encourage protocol designs
On 9/21/2013 9:40 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
1) Encourage protocol designs that rely on peer-to-peer transmission,
rather than intermediate relays, because relays are natural targets
for interception services.
Unless you are interacting on the same local net segment, when is
Internet
On 20 Sep 2013, at 05:54, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
I got my arm slightly twisted to produce the attached:
Thanks for getting that done
S
I confess that I am confused by much of this discussion. As I understand
it, PRISM is not a signals intelligence activity; it only addresses that
data at rest within those organisations who have partnered with the NSA.
As such, improving protocol security will achieve nothing against PRISM;
it is
Josh Howlett wrote:
I confess that I am confused by much of this discussion.
Several people in IETF is under control of NSA, maybe.
As I understand
it, PRISM is not a signals intelligence activity; it only addresses that
data at rest within those organisations who have partnered with the
On 09/20/2013 10:59 AM, Josh Howlett wrote:
I confess that I am confused by much of this discussion. As I understand
it, PRISM is not a signals intelligence activity; it only addresses that
data at rest within those organisations who have partnered with the NSA.
As such, improving protocol
Josh, Stephen,
It is important to understand the limitations of technology in this discussion.
We can improve communications security, and in some cases reduce the amount
information communicated. But we cannot help a situation where you are
communicating with a party that you cannot entirely
(2013/09/20 21:15), Jari Arkko wrote:
Josh, Stephen,
It is important to understand the limitations of technology in this
discussion. We can improve communications security, and in some
cases reduce the amount information communicated. But we cannot
help a situation where you are
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
It is important to understand the limitations of technology in this
discussion. We can improve communications security, and in some cases reduce
the amount information communicated. But we cannot help a situation where
Hi Masataka,
On 20.09.2013 16:06, Masataka Ohta wrote:
(2013/09/20 21:15), Jari Arkko wrote:
Josh, Stephen,
It is important to understand the limitations of technology in this
discussion. We can improve communications security, and in some
cases reduce the amount information communicated.
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
We can discourage people communicating with a party that are
under full control of USG, which is why using cloud services
should be discouraged, which is a technical issue.
An open standardization process means that everyone can participate,
including people who
On 20/09/2013, at 9:16 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:
As such the only practical way for a typical user to protect themselves
against PRISM is to switch to other providers based in jurisdictions that
provide the appropriate protections, or agitate to change the
Mark Nottingham wrote:
Not necessarily.
The proper protection is to avoid cloud services and have our
own end systems fully under control of ourselves.
Toward the goal, IETF should shutdown all the cloud related
WGs and never develop any protocol to promote cloud service.
I draw the
Hi Brian,
At 21:54 19-09-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I got my arm slightly twisted to produce the attached: a simple
concatenation of some of the actionable suggestions made in the
discussion of PRISM and Bruce Schneier's call for action.
Thanks for writing the draft. For the sake of
On 21/09/2013, at 11:33 AM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:
Cost for monitoring should be large?
Then, protocols not have any authoritative specification and
should never be standardized and there should be no central
authority to manage different versions of the
I got my arm slightly twisted to produce the attached: a simple
concatenation of some of the actionable suggestions made in the
discussion of PRISM and Bruce Schneier's call for action.
Brian
Original Message
Subject: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00.txt
34 matches
Mail list logo
