W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio

From: Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:05:15 -0800
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>,ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f249464e-4c00-4465-b492-eb2c49b14450@email.android.com>
While the treaty is old, the latest FCC review of the issue concluded just a month ago, An encryption ban is there for the foreseeable future and we like it that way, the rest of that discussion belongs off-list.

The presence of Amateur Radio makes an important point here, though: the global internet is far from the only user of the HTTP protocol. Comcast is another good example, they operate a huge private IPV6-only net over which there is lower-layer security and the high-layer band-aid of TLS is not necessary. Conventional internet traffic is encapsulated before being carried on the Comcast network, and is a minority payload there. But HTTP is an oft-used tool within the Comcast network.

The creation of a Concealment Society carries its own evils, rather than being a completely benign and freedom-preserving response to the problem of government and corporate surveilance. Not everyone opposes such surveilance, and not everyone is in favor of private efforts to defeat it. An HTTP protocol which provides us with no means of opting out of the Concealment Society takes out of our hands a choice that should be ours.

     Thanks

     Bruce

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>If there are good reasons to prefer the status quo that's fine, but that treaty is a fairly old thing
-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 17:05:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC