Subject: External link to article on trends in anti-surveillance design

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:17:13 -0500

Some of you may recall me ranting several years ago about the importance of
including anti-surveillance features as mandatory aspects of our protocols.
I seem to recall getting (mostly) politely laughed at ...

Anyhow, there's an article on the topic in Wired right now that hints at
the commercial reasons why service companies MUST build anti-surveillance
into their products in order to maintain market viability -- because their
competitors are going to do it and draw away the users. The same can apply
to our protocol designs.

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/08/stop-clumping-tech-companies-in-with-government-in-the-surveillance-scandals-they-may-be-at-war/

he point I'd like to make is that not only should our protocols be designed
so as to reduce their surveilability, they should also be design to help
other protocols do the same. Encryption, random ports, random packet sizes,
random interpacket timings, multipath, and peer-to-peer with relay support.
Think about it.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:22:28 -0600

On 8/29/13 11:17 AM, Dean Willis wrote:
> 
> importance of including anti-surveillance features as mandatory 
> aspects of our protocols.

Interesting stuff, but more on-topic for the perpass list:

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:50:55 +0000

> Interesting stuff, but more on-topic for the perpass list:

I think Deans point is precisely that it is _not_ a topic that can be restricted to the perpass list.

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:38:08 -0400

> restricted to the perpass list.
Yes and yes.  Every protocol needs privacy considerations, and such
considerations SHOULD be discussed in every WG.  But we also need a place
where we can talk about them in general, and that's perpass.

One of the major points a WG should ensure is that a protocol does not
_limit_ the privacy possibilities in the environment it is part of.  That's
not easy, but see RFC 6973 for a start.

Scott