- From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:06:13 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>, Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Public TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > > +0.5. That's why we should push for more opportunistic security: > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7435> > +1 I'm not up on the latest jargon, but many of the arguments I've put forth in this thread can be nutshelled as "opportunistic security," in particular my Washington, D.C. bar metaphor. With this approach, the bar would only be liable for the privacy of its mask-wearing members. Non-members desiring privacy can use Star Trek technology to transport in (Tor, or bring-your-own-mask), and if that privacy were violated, the bar wouldn't incur third-party liability. -Eric
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 00:07:07 UTC