W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: multiplexing -- don't do it

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 18:07:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYh2FguOSOVFdbgTkUm6f1bn+eKNhqHM6QWLr1G9nsa1Tw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net
> wrote:

>
> Le Ven 6 avril 2012 17:34, Mike Belshe a crit :
> > Once again - the people arguing against encryption are the people that
> want
> > to exploit the user's data transmission stream for their own personal
> gain.
> >
> > If we want the Internet to be protect users - encrypt it.
> >
> > If we want the Internet to be an enabler to vendors that want to
> > change/alter/slow down/trick users into seeing their content, buying
> their
> > products, etc, then don't.
> >
> > It's a simple choice:  users vs interceptors.
>
> It's not.
>
> On a corporation network the users are employees. Their employer does not
> owe
> them unlimited access to facebook, youtube or various porn sites.
>
> If filtering those breaks other network accesses because someone made war
> on
> 'interceptors' it's not the corporation which will be punished it's the
> end-users trying to work through this breakage.
>

Haven't we been down this read already on this mailing list? Let's create
and use explicit trusted https proxies (if you don't know what I'm talking
about here, make sure you've read some of these megathreads from the past
week). If a corporation wants to force all employees to allow their content
to be filtered, then let them use a group policy to force browsers to
connect via this proxy and configure their firewall rules to disallow
direct access to the internet.


>
> If their workstation breaks down because it got infected they won't thank
> you
> for disabling the network antivirus gateway. In fact if the BYOD craze
> succeeds, not only they will have to meet objectives despite computer
> breakdown, but they'll also have to fix their computer themselves.
>
> So may it result in some privacy loss? Maybe (though I'm sure most
> corporations would be happy not to look at a user webmail or bank as long
> as
> they could filter most of the rest). Do users care?  Facebook success says
> they don't.
>
> --
> Nicolas Mailhot
>
>
Received on Friday, 6 April 2012 16:07:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:59 GMT