Subject: [ietf-http-wg] <none>

From: "Nicolas Mailhot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:55:57 +0200

> From: Patrick McManus <[email-masked]>
On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 23:54 -0700, Mike Belshe 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."
[..]
> Sorry - that will be the last time I say that for a while...

> please keep saying it. That is the important point.

Show us the users that only go outside in trenchcoats and sunglasses for
fear of being observed going into a particular shop, reading a particular
book at the library, etc

Users *do* accept lack of absolute confidentiality in real life. Users
*do* advertise their tastes and orientations in case they were nor
pro-eminent enough (on social web sites, via clothes choices, going around
with bags with huge shop logos on them)

There is *no* real-life user demand for absolute confidentiality, either
on the internet or in physical life (except for a few marginals, commonly
deemed freaks by the majority of the population)

You are inventing requirements users didn't ask of you (and I'm sure
others would claim I'm on the freakish side myself)

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:06:08 -0700

These analogies are really very limited in their usefulness. The
Internet is “sui generis”, not really like anything else.

The only sane pro-user position is that Internet interaction between
two endpoints should not be readable by intermediaries.

Clearly, for people who are in the intermediaries business, users are
not their customers and their priorities may not be well-aligned with
those of the users.  This is not surprising and not unreasonable. But
I do object to claims that a pro-intermediary position is actually
pro-user, that people really don’t want/need privacy.

I’m glad that at least some voices here are pro-user.  -T

---

From: "Nicolas Mailhot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:25:48 +0200

Le Mer 18 juillet 2012 17:06, Tim Bray a écrit :

> not their customers

This is false. I'm operating an intermediary and I have more
accountability wrt my users than most of the web sites they visit.

> and their priorities may not be well-aligned with
> those of the users.  This is not surprising and not unreasonable.

This is blatant misinformation and propaganda.

> But

Things are not black and white like everywhere else and my users expect me
to perform services for them I could not do if theirs communications were
100% opaque to me.

> I’m glad that at least some voices here are pro-user.

They claim to be pro users. That does not mean they are.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:32:29 -0700

Tim, this entire thread is getting quite silly. TLS is not magic pixie dust
that'll make the world instantly more secure and private just by sprinkling
it about and thinking happy thoughts. For a particular segment of HTTP use,
using TLS by default makes A LOT of sense, granted, but the same does not
hold true for all uses of HTTP and claiming that those of us who say no to
mandatory TLS are simply "anti-user" is dishonest at best.

- James

---

From: Karl Dubost <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:06:10 -0400

Nicolas,
(and others)

Le 18 juil. 2012 à 11:25, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
> I'm operating an intermediary and I have more

* What is the intermediary?
* What is its business?
* Why/When do you need to see the content of their communications?

PS: In general, instead of discussing of the intents of a class of users, it is better to talk about your specific business needs. Without it, any discussion will spiral endlessly

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations, Opera Software

---

From: "Nicolas Mailhot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:46:00 +0200

> * Why/When do you need to see the content of their communications?

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012JulSep/0535.html

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

---

From: "Adrien W. de Croy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 22:10:42 +0000

------ Original Message ------
From: "Tim Bray" <[email-masked]>
>I’m glad that at least some voices here are pro-user.  -T

wow.

lets leave the retarded political rhetoric out of this hey? 

We are all users.