- From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 22:05:00 +0000
- To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "Eliot Lear" <lear@cisco.com>
- Cc: "Mike Belshe" <mike@belshe.com>, "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>, "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam@gmail.com>, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@gmail.com>, "grahame@healthintersections.com.au" <grahame@healthintersections.com.au>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
------ Original Message ------ From: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> >On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote: > >>> >>>Show me the user that will stand up and say, "Yes, I would like my >>>communications to be snoopable and changeable by 3rd parties without my >>>knowledge." > Show me the person who will stand up and say "yes I want to pay tax". This is not a way to prove anything. Especially when there's no discussion of the cost of not paying tax (having to live in cave and defend your family against attackers while you starve to death). Asking a question like that with no consideration of cost is misleading at best. >> >> >> >>This is a red herring. The real argument is around the ability of all web >>servers to get certificates >> > > >This pattern keeps coming up. >A: “Privacy is good” >B: “No, because the technology is currently too expensive/unreliable” > >Uh... privacy is good. -T > > > there are a few words missing from the statement "privacy is good" in the context of this discussion. what you're actually saying is "privacy is always good for everyone in all circumstances". That is where there is room for disagreement, with the "...always...everyone...all circumstances" part. Others going on to claim that people who take issue with the "...always...everyone...all circumstances" part (because they see it even though it's perpetually omitted by the proponents) therefore are anti-user is the sort of reasoning that let GW Bush take the world where it is today. We can do better than that. >
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 22:05:26 UTC