- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 20:52:46 +0000
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- cc: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <CAP+FsNenAQvhoMMNmWj_hjjV9rrZPQT92pNGXaM3Kdm0T_bu=Q@mail.gmail.com>, Roberto Peon writes: >In any case, if you're doing the work of signing, why not just encrypt? Because signing wouldn't force Police-states intelligence services to break, weaken or circumvent any and all encryption, in order to comply with the mandate they were put under, by democratically elected politicians ? If you make encryption mandatory in HTTP/2.0, more of your tax-money will drain into NSA[1] ? Poul-Henning [1] The Guardian pegs the number at around 850.000 NSA employees and contractors: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Sunday, 25 August 2013 20:53:09 UTC