On 12/12/2013 10:19, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> I've a question about the relevance of your comment
> John:
>
> On 12/11/2013 08:53 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> if encryption
>> were pervasive
>
> The draft in question does not call for that. It calls
> for proper consideration of the pervasive monitoring
> attack and work to mitigate that.
And I intended my comment to mean that. I suspect that
pervasive encryption would be more of a curse than a
blessing; IMHO we need to do a lot more analysis to
determine the appropriate counter-measures. They may well
include pervasive *ability to encrypt* but that is a vastly
different statement from recommending pervasive encryption.
And as the French government has so neatly demonstrated,
pervasive encryption doesn't actually prevent surveillance.
Brian