Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra

'runs a risk of' is not a pro or con.

Mike
On Nov 17, 2013 12:18 AM, "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

> In message <
> CAHBU6is_KHGHTDeh31vZCVGZtQpuqNQr5NJtsGfsQ7As2G3jRw@mail.gmail.com>
> , Tim Bray writes:
>
> >To help sort things out in my own mind, I just went and read the last few
> >hundred messages and attempted to curate the pervasive/mandatory
> encryption
> >arguments, pro and contra.  It's in a Google doc that's open to comment by
> >anyone: http://goo.gl/6yhpC1  Hm, is there a handy wiki platform
> somewhere
> >that can stand up to the pressure?
>
> It's a good topline summary.
>
> I would add:
>
> C6.5:  Pervasive encryption will be defeated by the agencies tasked with
>        performing pervasive surveillance:  It's their job.
>
> C6.6:  Pervasive encryption runs a very big risk of being out-lawed, if
>        it makes pervasive surveillance impossible.
>
> (And before any USAnians flash the "1st ammendment" card:  Yes, you
> have a constitutional right to say any damn thing you want, but not
> to encrypt it, in particular not if the "national security" flag
> is waved.)
>
> --
> 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.
>
>