On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 at 22:27, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
* As John Levine more or less pointed out below, getting
encryption right means finding mutual understandings and
understanding what will inevitably be a somewhat delicate
balance. While, like him, I see the advantages of encryption as
greater than the disadvantages, it seems to me that it is very
much in our interests --and very much in the interest of
preserving access to encryption-- if we recognize that there are
tradeoffs and help people understand them, we are all likely to
be better off in the long term than if we work ourselves into
"encryption good; anyone who questions that is inherently evil
or stupid" positions like a sister organization of ours seems to
be doing.
The core issue with these "tradeoffs" is they are binary. You either have encryption, or you don't. The whole notion that there is a spectrum on which you can choose your place is flawed.
Those who want us to "weaken" (i.e. disable) encryption persist in painting those who point this out as unreasonable and inflexible. I prefer to call them expert.
