With no hat on... Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 12, 2017, at 6:18 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> > wrote: > > > >> On 12/07/17 16:54, Kyle Rose wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie >>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> On 12/07/17 16:27, Kyle Rose wrote: >>>> The telco in the POTS case isn't either endpoint. The third-party >>>> surveillance is unknown to those endpoints. Therefore: wiretapping. >>> >>> Same in the wordpress.com or smtp/tls cases already >>> described on list. Therefore: wiretapping. >>> >>> My point was that "collaborating" does not mean not >>> wiretapping. Saying otherwise is what'd be silly. >>> >> >> And yet that's what 2804, what you have repeatedly cited, explicitly >> states. I'm going to go with the definition given there, "silly" or not. > > The definition in 2804 is not silly, nor did I say it was. > > I said your implication that "collaboration" => "not > wiretapping" was silly. > >> This isn't wiretapping: it's *something else* potentially bad, but not all >> surveillance is wiretapping. > > Not all surveillance is wiretapping, sure, that is > true. > The difference with the WordPress & SMTP examples is that you know content will sit in plaintext on the servers, whereas with POTS, you need to wiretap to get the voice content. You only expect the log that the call transpired to exist with the service provider. I'm still in a mode of listening to arguments, but wanted to point this out in case better examples emerged. Thanks, Kathleen > What is also true is that the draft being discussed > is entirely clearly usable for wiretapping in some > applications that use TLS according to the definition > in 2804. > > S. > > >> >> Kyle >> > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
