Subject: Questioning the question (was Re: [Raven] Re: (no subject))

From: "Chris Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:46:44 +0000

Ed Stone Wrote:
>The "original question":
>
>"should the IETF develop new protocols or modify existing protocols to 
>support mechanisms whose primary purpose is to support wiretapping or
>other 
>law enforcement activities"
>
>and
>
>"what should the IETF's position be on informational documents that
explain 
>how to perform message or data-stream interception without protocol 
>modifications".
>
>The first question is a yes/no question.
>The second question would be answered with a recommended position.
>
>To work on the subject (question one) does not require one to develop or 
>put forward wiretapping protocols for evaluation. To the contrary, that 
>would cause a premature technical discussion to displace and obscure the 
>overarching philosophical question that was properly posed.
>
>Working on the first question posed requires one, if one has a position,
to 
>state whether or not one favors having "the IETF develop new protocols or 
>modify existing protocols to support mechanisms whose primary purpose is
>to 
>support wiretapping or other law enforcement activities".
>
>A proper response to the question "Should we give the police department a 
>key to the front door?" would be "yes (and optionally with reasons)" or
"no 
>(and optionally with reasons)". It would **not** be "The key we give them 
>could activate 10-pins, be made of steel, and they could give us a receipt

>for it, and agree to tell us within six months of their use of it." Even 
>further distracting from the issue at had ("should we") would be the 
>inevitable response, "it should have 12-pins, be made of brass, and they 
>must agree to tell us within 90 days".

While I fully endorse the sentiments, I do feel that limiting the debate
too strictly can cramp debate. IMHO, introducing the practicalities can
help short-circuit a potentially lengthy ethical debate. 

So, lets take your question of giving the police department a front door
key. While not strictly within the terms of the debate, it would
nonetheless speed things if someone wanted to point out that:

1. The door was actually bricked up solid with boards nailed across it

or alternatively

2. There was no keyhole.

"Should we" must by necessity be a question that encompasses both  ethics
and practicality. 

The question "Should I write off all world debt" leads to some interesting
ethical debates. The fact that I only have $5 rather shortens the debate.

In this circumstances, I think that the list's attempt to examine both
ethical and broad technical issues was reasonable.

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven