Re: [Asrg] request for review for a non FUSSP proposal

[Seth <sethb at panix.com>]

Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <Jose-Marcio.Martins at mines-paristech.fr>
wrote:
> Seth wrote:

>> No, it isn't.  The Internet philosophy is "we ship bits around.
> That's what spammers do...

And pirates, and people sending email to their aunts, and people
making VOIP phone calls to their lovers, and . . .

That's what using the Internet _means_.

>> Interpretation is someone else's problem."
> and this is what usual spam filters do.

And every application likewise.

> In your idea, the problem is pushed into recipients.

I didn't say that.  The Internet moves bits around; that's what IP
does.  You put a packet into the Internet, with a specified
destination address, and the Internet gets it there (or not).

> Consent pushes the problem to the sender.

Consent is at a higher level, just like interpretation (though consent
is around level 9).

>> VPNs aren't against that philosophy, they're embraced by it.
> Ther's a big difference between VPNs and consent.

They aren't anywhere near the same thing.  Why are you comparing them?

> VPNs are really private - information about VPNs instances (IP
> address of entry points, protocol, flavour, ...) aren't public and
> aren't available to unknown users.

Whether or not they are is up to the owner of the equipment providing
the VPN.  (Hint: encrypted proxies are VPNs, and with the current
events in Iran there are a lot of public ones.)

> Consent users information is public

What does that mean?  Information that is mine is public to the extent
I publicize it.

> Claudio Telmon email address is public and known by everybody.

Very unlikely.  Even "president at whitehouse.gov" isn't known by
_everybody_.

And I personally have hundreds of email addresses, each of which is
(or should be) known by precisely one entity.

Seth