Re: Mandatory encryption *is* theater

+1.  Encryption is not theater.   It raises the bar in a meaningful way.
On Aug 27, 2013 10:23 AM, "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
wrote:

>
> So just chiming in generally on this thread with no hats:
>
> - I don't agree with the subject line - if done properly,
> turning on encryption without authentication could be useful
> and not simply theater - for example it could increase the
> cost and/or complexity (and hence likelihood of discovery)
> of deploying pervasive surveillance.
>
> - Done badly of course, the outcome could be theater.
>
> - I disagree that making better use of crypto might cause
> authorities to be more authoritarian - while that might be
> a reasonable position to hold for folks with a certain world
> view, its entirely unconvincing. I suspect that folks with
> that position cannot be convinced they are wrong and nor
> can folks who don't have that position.
>
> - I don't think this discussion should really have much to
> do with earlier discussions about performance or middleboxes.
> The WG had that discussion and this one is based on "new
> information" as I think Mark put it.
>
> - Some people might oversell the results of this discussion,
> yes, but that's always a danger and shouldn't drive the WG
> decision.
>
> All in all, I'd like to see more use of HTTP/TLS for
> confidentiality, even without origin authentication. (But
> that's probably no surprise:-)
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
>
>
>
>