Re: Wild Tangent about Crypto (was Re: CfC: only allow authenticated origins to call getUserMedia)

On 8 October 2014 16:14, Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com> wrote:
> It's a bit of a tangent, I agree. And I apologize for not making it
> clear that I believe all of these questions are intertwined:
>
> * Why should we pay the cost of developing and deploying a security
> mechanism if its guarantee is not strong enough to justify even a
> 1-bit a user-visible promise? Keep in mind that resources spent
> defeating purely passive attacks are resources that cannot be spent on
> stronger mechanisms.
>
> * Why should users trust an origin that cannot make a promise? (With
> their cameras and microphones?)
>
> * Why should we believe the cost differential between active and
> passive attack is large?

At this point, I'd request that the chair's truncate this tangent.

What is surprising here, is that this is one of the last places I
expected to see such a vehemently argued version of this argument.
We'll take every opportunity, I guess, when someone is wrong on the
Internet.