> Il 12 marzo 2019 alle 19.56 Christian Huitema <huit...@huitema.net> ha > scritto: > > You are saying that whoever happens to control part of the network path > is entitled to override the user choices and impose their own. Really? > As Stephane wrote, that may be legit in some circumstances, but much > more questionable in others, such as a hotel Wi-Fi attempting to decide > what sites I could or could not access.
The reaction I got from some policy people when I mentioned this kind of arguments going on here is "when did the IETF get the mandate to decide for everyone that content filtering by intermediaries is always bad? This is matter for competition / telco / human rights legislation, and will vary country by country." To quote what you wrote in another message: > There is a lot of difference between what can be imposed in a > police state and what looks legitimate in a user agreement in a > free country. And I sure hope that we maintain that difference. A > good result of that discussion would be to clarify these > differences. Do you really think that this is the IETF's job? Deciding "what looks legitimate in a user agreement in a free country" (and presumably, also what tells "a police state" from "a free country") and enforcing such decision via technical measures? Ciao, -- Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange vittorio.bert...@open-xchange.com Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
