- From: J Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:10:48 +0100
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 03/04/2012 02:55, Adrien W. de Croy wrote: > OK, thanks for pointing that out. > > We are at a slightly different juncture than we were in 2000. > > It seems to me, the issue of mandatory SSL is far from put to rest. > > In relation to RFC2804, it's one thing to take a position of not > taking a position, which is fine and completely reasonable. > > It's another to promote a protocol that explicitly goes against the > wishes of governments, and therefore creates problems for > implementors, potentially criminalises users and implementors. Thats > doesn't equate to not taking a position. On a related note, has everyone seen the UK government is considering laws requiring acccess to monitor Internet communication? "The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon." - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745 Ross
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 08:11:19 UTC