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

Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra

From: Robert Collins <robertc@squid-cache.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:45:23 +1300
Message-ID: <CAJ3HoZ2KtChSyoiZVmT3jyJwJHA0JfLsCsGe3z5TjFkEiAYJ_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
C5.2 Itís unethical to insert encryption into peopleís connections
without their consent.
This has an inverse:
P3 : It's unethical to have presumed-private conversations not be

Arguably to P1 (protection) : this is about expectations of users.

-Rob

On 17 November 2013 14:03, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> There has been a *whole lot* of traffic on this subject.  Itís fascinating
> that the meeting of minds is so difficult, and any possibility of that
> happening is made more difficult by the discussion skewing back and forth
> across the road.
>
> To help sort things out in my own mind, I just went and read the last few
> hundred messages and attempted to curate the pervasive/mandatory encryption
> arguments, pro and contra.  Itís in a Google doc thatís open to comment by
> anyone: http://goo.gl/6yhpC1  Hm, is there a handy wiki platform somewhere
> that can stand up to the pressure?
>
> I donít know if trying to organize the talking points is generally useful,
> but I sure found it personally useful; maybe others will too.
>
> Disclosure: I remain pretty strongly in favor of as much mandatory
> encryption as we can get, so that may have filtered my expression of the
> issues.  I've version-stamped this: 2013/11/16, and promise not to change it
> in case people comment on it.
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 08:45:52 UTC

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