Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra


Is anyone here from RIM?  It would be interesting to get their 
perspective on this, having lived it in India.


------ Original Message ------
From: "Bruce Perens" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: 18/11/2013 10:26:21 a.m.
Subject: Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra
>On 11/17/2013 01:07 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
>>Someone added a "con" to the list that it is somehow unethical to use 
>Not unethical to use it where appropriate. Both unethical and 
>ultimately damaging to society to use it when it isn't strictly 
>necessary. To do so:
>* Ultimately damages the operation of the internet by making caching 
>and other legitimate manipulations of HTTP impossible.
>* Reduces the freedom of people to control their own networks in the 
>face of possibly-hostile applications in their own devices, by chaffing 
>their private networks.
>* Makes more difficult the job of police and intelligence agencies that 
>have an actual responsibility to protect us.
>The problem of surveilance is a political one, and should be dealt with 
>politically. For us to make the job of police and intelligence agencies 
>more difficult arbitrarily and without any _public_ mandate to do so 
>is, I think, on a range between immature and criminal.
>But, you say, you're just trying to protect people! It's not that easy.
>Folks, whether we technically enable inappropriate use of surveilance 
>or hinder appropriate use of surveilance, we end up with blood on our 
>hands either way. If we are not involved in the _political_ process 
>around this issue, and do not work to find a balance there, we have 
>little to excuse us.
>     Thanks
>     Bruce

Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 23:40:30 UTC