|
|
|
|
|
|
by fredpeters
5788 days ago
|
|
|
I agree with you to a certain extent. However, I think that there is still some scope for useful regulations of established standards. For example http(s) should not have any limits put upon it. I would be happy with just that. The FCC will always be behind the times, but they can still offer some security in what would now be clearly unjust to tamper with. |
|
|
Entry of specifics into statute is not helpful - a lot of work was needed to alter laws (in UK) which included prescription of snail-mailing various forms or information so that the laws could be used with fax, then with email.
Hence, the specific protocol should not be used to limit only as an example (admittedly this was probably your thinking too) - "there shall be no prejudice held against network traffic sent using end-to-end encryption regardless of origin except in the following cases ..." or some such. The specific encryption can be mentioned in headers or in associated rules or in a definitions section.