[AusNOG] Consultation on s313(3) use

[Peter Tiggerdine]

Fbi is more likely to muscle the root cert providers on the quiet than to
be so open as a licensing business model.

I can understand your point of view but how can charge be applied for
something that is free(ignoring signing fees already paid)?

Regards,

Peter Tiggerdine


On May 2, 2016 19:16, "Paul Wilkins" <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mark,
> I'm glad you raised the point, as it needs to be clarified that the
> purview of the s313 inquiry is "disruption" of services. It's not required
> to read the data stream. For the purposes of s313 it should be sufficient
> to read the SSL certificate, and then block by either white list or black
> list.
>
> John,
> For better or worse, we're heading to a future where SSL will not be
> banned, but it will be licensed. This in my view is what's driving the
> ongoing spat between the FBI and Apple.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On 2 May 2016 at 13:49, Mark Newton <newton at atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
>
>> On May 2, 2016, at 1:41 PM, John Lindsay <johnslindsay at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This is easy. Just ban ssl. Sorted.
>>
>> Sure, they can do that, and we’ll all keep using it. Maybe we’ll rename
>> it “TLS” so we don’t have to tell them that their ban has been unsuccessful.
>>
>>   - mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20160504/cb8c2cd7/attachment.html>