> > From: ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > In light of the sentiments expressed at the plenary and in perpass in > > regards to opportunistic encryptions, perhaps this is the dogfood we > > should be eating. > Yes, encrypting publicly available documents will do so much to increase our > privacy. ;-) > Look, I've got nothing against increasing privacy, but encrypting everything > is neither a privacy panacea, nor without costs/hassles. I agree 100%. > E.g. Wikipedia now insists on sending me to HTTPS: versions of _all_ their > pages (I guess to protect against a MITM corrupting the content - since the > content is totally public, I can't figure out what else good they think it > does - although HTTPS doesn't really do that good a job at that). Insisting on encryption != opportunistic encryption. And yes, if they require it, that's bad for exactly the same reasons it would be bad for the IETF to do so. > Problem is > that for one of my browsers, it somehow can't get the certificates right, so > every time I go to Wikipedia I get a zillion pop-ups complaining about > certificate problems. Irony is, of course, that in some counties the whole > site is just plain totally blocked. Exactly right. But if we can do it in a way that causes those with the ability to upgrade to an encrypted connection to do so, that's not a bad thing. Ned