On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 01:06:37PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
Peter Gutmann wrote:
... to a statistically irrelevant bunch of geeks.
Watch Skype deploy a not- terribly-anonymous (to the
people running the Skype servers) communications
system.
Actually that is pretty anonymous.
Nicolas Williams wrote:
Providing a suitable e-mail security solution for the
masses strikes me as more important than providing
anonymity to the few people who want or need it. Not
that you can't have both, unless you want everyone to
use PGP or S/MIME as a way to hide anonymized traffic
Peter Gutmann wrote:
... to a statistically irrelevant bunch of geeks.
Watch Skype deploy a not- terribly-anonymous (to the
people running the Skype servers) communications
system.
Actually that is pretty anonymous. Although I am sure
that Skype would play ball with any bunch of goons that
StealthMonger stealthmon...@nym.mixmin.net writes:
Connection-based communication such as Skype and OTR do not provide this
capability. The hop by hop store-and-forward email network does. This is not
busted or wrong. It's essential.
... to a statistically irrelevant bunch of geeks. Watch
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 03:06:04AM +, StealthMonger wrote:
Alec Muffett alec.muff...@sun.com writes:
In the world of e-mail the problem is that the end-user inherits a
blob of data which was encrypted in order to defend the message as it
passes hop by hop over the store-and-forward
Alec Muffett alec.muff...@sun.com writes:
In the world of e-mail the problem is that the end-user inherits a
blob of data which was encrypted in order to defend the message as it
passes hop by hop over the store-and-forward SMTP-relay (or UUCP?) e-
mail network... but the user is left to
--
We discovered, however, that most people do not want
to manage their own secrets
StealthMonger wrote:
This may help to explain the poor uptake of encrypted
email.
There is very good uptake of skype and ssh, because
those impose no or very little additional cost on the
end
On 8 Dec 2008, at 22:43, David G. Koontz wrote:
JOHN GALT wrote:
StealthMonger wrote:
This may help to explain the poor uptake of encrypted email. It
would
be useful to know exactly what has been discovered. Can you provide
references?
The iconic Paper explaining this is Why Johnny
On 8 Dec 2008, at 21:13, JOHN GALT wrote:
The iconic Paper explaining this is Why Johnny Can't Encrypt
available here: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1251435
Orlbaq gur Jul Wbuaal cncre - sbphfvat hcba hfnovyvgl - V guvax
gurer vf n uvture ceboyrz bs vagrebcrenovyvgl naq
Alec Muffett wrote:
Naq bs pbhefr lbh unir gb nepuvir pbcvrf bs gur ybofgre, abg gur fbhc.
If we still had finger-plans, this would have made its way into mine.
What a great quote!
/ji
PS: For the rot13-impaired, it reads And of course you have to archive
copies of the lobster, not the
James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course, the old cypherpunk dream is a system with end to end
encryption, with individuals having the choice of holding their own
secrets, rather than these secrets being managed by some not very
trusted authority
We discovered, however,
StealthMonger wrote:
This may help to explain the poor uptake of encrypted email. It would
be useful to know exactly what has been discovered. Can you provide
references?
The iconic Paper explaining this is Why Johnny Can't Encrypt available
here:
JOHN GALT wrote:
StealthMonger wrote:
This may help to explain the poor uptake of encrypted email. It would
be useful to know exactly what has been discovered. Can you provide
references?
The iconic Paper explaining this is Why Johnny Can't Encrypt available
here:
13 matches
Mail list logo
