|
Harald, On 8/17/15 2:09 PM, Harald Alvestrand
wrote:
On 08/17/2015 09:06 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:Escrow is only useful against law-abiding people who trust the government(s) in the first place.It's that assertion that has been repeatedly proven false with all manner of other technology. I did provide a citation to this list on August 12th that contradicted what Brian wrote above: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/business/international/effects-of-petrobras-scandal-leave-brazilians-lamenting-a-lost-dream.html Here's a case where the people in question could have gone to some lengths to protect their communications but did not. That is practically speaking the entire history of wiretapping.[*] That doesn't mean we break our protocol suite to wire tap, but it also doesn't mean that we overstate the negatives when talking to others. 1984 makes clear that use of escrow and other approaches has serious side effects that can negatively impact security. That statement is good enough.[**] Eliot [*] I'm reminded of another example of this sort of thing. Many years ago, in the middle of winter, my parents' house was broken into. They called the police and the police quickly arrested a person who lived nearby, having tracked him by his footprints in a snowy field that links many of the houses. Had he simply walked on the clear sidewalk, he probably wouldn't have been caught. Not all criminals are super geniuses.[1] [**] Elsewhere it has been asserted that the ability to create a functioning escrow approach that scales. I think that's very likely true, but if it turns out not to be, we should revisit 1984 at that time, as to whether or not it remains appropriate as a BCP. [1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/ladystephanie/10227056515 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature