Re: From Christian -- Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Meta: Strawman - Process vs. Policy

[Marc Perkel <marc@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dave Piscitello wrote:
> Christian,
>
> When I say trusted and you or Wendy substitute "private", you change 
> the discussion from one I intend to be technical in nature to one that 
> has to do with law.
> When I say "monitoring" and you or Wendy substitute "policing", you 
> infer something altogether different (with at least some presumption 
> of the potential for abuse). Again, this context switch takes us down 
> a discourse path prematurely.
I have to agree. I also object to in artificial injection of "policing" 
into the discussion in a way that implies motive where none exists. 
Trusted parties are based on people who are involved in the problem who 
have both the data and the expertise to effectively deal with a 
technical problem.
Technically policing means different things in different contexts. If I 
owned a bar and hired a bouncer to throw drunks out who have behavior 
problem when too drunk, is the policing? Technically yes. But they are 
not "the police" and they are not part of a government conspiracy to 
take away the right of people to have a good time.
In fact, the more the Internet is self policed the less pressure there 
is for governments to get involved. So if we can solve problems of our 
networks being used for fraud ourselves then there is less pressure to 
have government pass laws to solve our problems for us. So the way I see 
it we are contributing to the freedom and independence of the internet 
by acting as "bar bouncers" so that we don't have to call in the cops.