On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 02:19:48PM -0800, John Adams wrote: > Your proposal doesn't even give people a way to encrypt their location > data; By moving geodata to a portion of the protocol which is not covered
It's not possible to hide location. Anonymity and efficient transport don't mix. This will become even more so at TBit/s transport rates. That's no problem, as you can use e.g. mix networks to provide strong anonymity for those who need at a higher layer. The sooner everbody realizes this, the sooner we can move on. > by commonly used encryption methods (i.e. HTTPS, which is up a few layers > in the stack) people can't be protected should this data be monitored by a > malicious intermediary. Think: Syria, China, Iran, or any other government > which will kill you for your words online. > > Application protocols sending GPS data under say, HTTPS protect the end > user from revealing their location to anyone on their path, forcing an > intermediary to look up the IP in a common geo database which will be > mostly inaccurate in pinpointing users, and hopefully will save lives. > > Companies like Twitter, Facebook, and some parts of google are going HTTPS > by default for this very reason. > > This proposal is dead, you don't have the sense to lie down.
