[e2e] a means to an end

[David P. Reed]

I thought I made it clear that I don't direct any innuendo towards 
Fred.  Nowhere in this message do I attribute ANYTHING to Fred.

That said, I do attribute to "folks on this list who think that networks 
should be the center of power and control",   If that can be called 
"innuendo directed at Fred" I want to clarify it right here: I did not 
mean that phrase to refer to Fred, not in ANY way.  As far as I know, 
Fred does not believe that.  I apologize for any possible interpretation 
that that phrase applied to Fred, such an interpretation was not meant 
in any way.

I do think there are or have been such people on this list.  I prefer 
not to embarrass them by naming them.  You can read the messages 
archived to find those messages where people assert that the network 
designers should decide which uses of the network are to be allowed, and 
which are not.

I also referred to "servants of the market".  Perhaps my dismay at those 
who continue to assert that there is no place for ethics in business, no 
place for concern about the impact of the systems one designs led me to 
express myself too sarcastically.

Yet I personally feel it is quite important for us NOT to design extra 
"location tracking" into the base of the Internet unless it is 
NECESSARY.  It is not sufficient to say it saves pennies.  The saving of 
pennies can also justify designing airplanes that crash twice as often.



stephen wolff wrote:
> David -
>
> Rarely have I seen so unjustified, extended, and egregious innuendo 
> directed towards a gentleman who has for many years served the 
> Internet, its user community, and his employer with openness, 
> competence, and honor.
>
> On the topic of professional standards and ethics: Look inward, and 
> know thyself.
>
> stephen wolff
>
> On Nov 7, 2008, at 20:04, David P. Reed wrote:
>
>> Just for clarification, Fred, I'm not postulating anything in 
>> particular.
>>
>> At most I'm raising a (possibly irritating) question founded in my 
>> current interests in making wireless communication a first class 
>> citizen and wired communication a mere resident alien in the human 
>> agora, one who bids to supplement the natural capabilities of humans 
>> to communicate just fine for centuries without "service providers." 
>> We already have very enticing service providers who offer 
>> efficiency/convenience in exchange for down payments on their 
>> customers' firstborn children, thank you very much.
>>
>> In particular, we might well wonder why all network operators who 
>> maintain routers should become privileged to know where *all* the 
>> people on the planet who *might* communicate are currently located in 
>> order to deliver messages connecting a vanishingly small subset of 
>> the N^2 possible pairings of customers.  Should the routers in Russia 
>> know when a Georgian raising money for military support travels 
>> between NY and China?  If that person never needs to talk to a 
>> Russian, why distribute the tracking data in any form, much less 
>> distribute it to places where communications will never be sought?
>>
>> Certainly this "network location tracking" enhances "efficiency" in 
>> one sense.  And the folks on this list who think that networks ought 
>> be at the center of all power and control might feel just fine with 
>> this.  After all, they personally have good consciences and nothing 
>> but love for their fellow humans (other than those whom their 
>> governments have managed to define as subhuman, evil beings :-) ).
>>
>> Of course, as mere servants of the market, our personal qualms should 
>> never be attached to mere technical attempts at efficiency.  We must 
>> serve only the investors of our employers, never humanity, nor 
>> professional standards and ethics.
>
>