- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:47:28 +0100
- To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, httpbis mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
* Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>In message <5c8i891ufcgcljeblec314pm868deph6h6@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>, Bjoer
>n Hoehrmann writes:
>
>>I understood the comment as saying that the point does not belong on
>>a "pro and contra" list, which seems fair enough in this instance.
>
>Why is having your protocol banned in USA or China not a "con" ?
If "pervasive encryption" was outlawed and lawmakers asked me to explain
the pros and the cons of it, I would not list the legal status as a con,
I would consider that besides the point. Talking to others I would note
it's not a legal option. I think it's fair to say
Contra:
- Not an option.
would be a bit strange, all the more so if it was
Contra:
- Could become not a legal option.
as that is true for everything.
I also think the argument is flawed. Consider two scenarios:
A: We encrypt only the most sensitive top 1% communications.
B: We encrypt everything except the most sensitive top 1%.
In which scenario is encryption more likely to be outlawed? I believe
people would find it strange if pervasiveness was the deciding factor.
It seems more likely that governments would attack elsewhere, such as
mandating digital repression mechanisms on licensed devices.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 20:47:59 UTC