Re: Mandatory encryption *is* theater

On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>wrote:
> In message <
> CAP+FsNekM95SuMvO1_hxeVf2hWb+rApzkD417n+1N5w_V2+VOA@mail.gmail.com>,
> Roberto Peon writes:
>
> >Such entities would have motivation to circumvent security regardless of
> >whether or not things are encrypted. That problem isn't technical-- it is
> >political.
>
> Correct, but if you make encrypt mandatory, they will have to break
> _all_ encryption, that's what the law tells them to.
>
> As long as encryption only affects a minority of traffic and they can
> easier go around (ie: FaceBook, Google etc. delivering the goods)
> they don't need to render _all_ encryption transparent.
>
> >In any case, the intent here is to negotiate for encryption, not security.
>
> As long as it's negotiation, and the server or client can decline that's
> not a problem as such.
>
>
The server always gets to decline. The client doesn't even get to propose
it today :)
-=R
> However, some people seem to want the server to not have a choice, that's
> a no-go.
> Poul-Henning
>
> --
> 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.
>