[saag] Re: Suggested Project

Dear colleagues,

On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 01:46:11PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:

>I don't know if DULT will accomplish it's goals, but the problem of recording
>or not (audio, video, ...) seems very much related to the problem of tracking or not.
>There are multiple parties with conflicting needs/requirements, along with
>multiple opportunities for legitimate signals to be spoof or drowned out.

I think that analysis might be true.  But if DULT is the basis (or for that matter, if the AIPREF work is to be the basis) of a preference signal, it certainly needs to be clear to the others with the opportunity to send such a signal the range of players whose interest alignment might be in play.  It would be bad if we worry about (for instance) the things a tracker might do with data (which implicitly suggests multiple associations of the tracked across various activities) and fail to worry about the issue of the inability of one to signal (non-)consent to various networked technical interventions in one's quotidian life.  Maybe the answer to that latter issue is no more than the way the public-private distinction has been handled to date in one's own society (recognizing that the analysis of that is not trivial).  But it seems to me the issue is wider than just tracking.

>There is no new protocol here for the IETF to develop around "smart" glasses
>at this time.

I think I might prefer to say that it isn't clear whether there is something for the IETF to do (is there an Internet problem?); it isn't clear whether "smart" glasses are really the correct boundary for the class of issues; and, that the only way to answer that would be to get some clearer statements of what problems need to be addressed.  It's surely more than just concerns about large data processors' access to the data.  If someone enters my home recording everything within, even just out of carelessness, I would like to know that, just for a trivial example.

>And, even if there were, we have no way to compel the products
>to follow the new protocol.

If _that_ were the basis by which the IETF selected work, everyone could go home.  Nobody has any way to compel anyone to use any of the IETF protocols.  What might be harder in this case is that it's difficult to see what self-interest the recorder is foiled if the recorded's preferences are not followed.  If I won't interoperate with you because you don't use https, presumably you lose something by my lack of interoperation.  I don't really have a way to foil your video recordings if I detect you're doing it and protest, but you do it anyway.  I suppose our lives will get more interesting if people start carrying around mag-pulse or invisible-light laser defense mechanisms.  I recall an expression about an eye for an eye making the whole world blind -- maybe we're going to learn!

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email protected]

_______________________________________________
saag mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]