- From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 17:52:09 +0200
- To: "Mike Belshe" <mike@belshe.com>
- Cc: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Le Ven 6 avril 2012 17:34, Mike Belshe a écrit : > 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. 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 15:52:41 UTC