user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

Tue May 17 23:44:14 UTC 2011

(And I get flamed by multiple people because I put in the quote and managed to
hit send before adding the commentary. Maybe one of these days I'll learn not
to try to mix replying to e-mail and dealing with vendor engineers doing a tape
library expansion at the same time. :)  Oh well, equivalent text follows as a
reply to Scott...)

On Tue, 17 May 2011 16:05:11 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
> It doesn't have to be that way.  We can design these things any way we want.

True.  The question is whether we get to *deploy* said designs.

> Why give the corpment (corporate/government contraction) an easy time at it?
> Just like the early days, security and privacy do not seem to be in folk's mind
> when things are being designed.

But more importantly, who has more/better lobbyists, you or the people who
want things like COICA and ACTA?

You're going to have to fix *that* problem before trying to address it at the
protocol level will do any real, lasting good.  Either that or we need a *lot* more TOR
relays (while those are still legal).

Oh, and an article that coincidentally popped up since I hit 'send' on the
previous mail:

http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/05/anonymize-data-limits.html

Designing things to evade good data mining is a *lot* harder than it looks.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20110517/7e9991d0/attachment.sig>