Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra

I think Poul's argument is that P1 and P2 are simply invalid. He wrote
an article for that. If they are listed as pros, we need cons to
counter them.

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <> wrote:
> * Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>In message <>, 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 · ·
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ·
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ·

Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 22:26:50 UTC