On 8/15/2015 1:21 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > Let's not boil the ocean here. Many criminals use COTS solutions. > Disabling their technology in a way that is still provides satisfactory > for privacy for ordinary citizens would be a useful engineering goal > that pragmatically addresses both their need for privacy and the > need for law enforcement. On 8/17/2015 8:30 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > fortunately the majority ofcriminals are not so smart, and > fundamentally that is the edge that makes law enforcement possible. Stewart, So the goal you are espousing is to globally embed a mechanism for compromising privacy, in order to catch stupid criminals, knowing that it will be useless against serious and intelligent criminals? Your premise that the result would "provide[] satisfactory privacy for ordinary citizens" is, so far, counterfactual, given the many and continuing revelations that document state-based compromises. Based on experience to date, at best what you propose is an open and very difficult research topic, at the intersection of computer science, engineering, operations, politics and sociology. The issue here is not a question of a component bit of key distribution design, but rather of system-level, long-term efficacy in protecting privacy in the face of sustained compromise efforts by well-funded, dedicated and highly intelligent adversaries. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net