On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 02:19:48PM -0800, John Adams wrote:
Your proposal doesn't even give people a way to encrypt their location data; By moving geodata to a portion of the protocol which is not covered
It's not possible to hide location. Anonymity and efficient transport don't mix. This will become even more so at TBit/s transport rates. That's no problem, as you can use e.g. mix networks to provide strong anonymity for those who need at a higher layer. The sooner everbody realizes this, the sooner we can move on.
by commonly used encryption methods (i.e. HTTPS, which is up a few layers in the stack) people can't be protected should this data be monitored by a malicious intermediary. Think: Syria, China, Iran, or any other government which will kill you for your words online.
Application protocols sending GPS data under say, HTTPS protect the end user from revealing their location to anyone on their path, forcing an intermediary to look up the IP in a common geo database which will be mostly inaccurate in pinpointing users, and hopefully will save lives.
Companies like Twitter, Facebook, and some parts of google are going HTTPS by default for this very reason.
This proposal is dead, you don't have the sense to lie down.