On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 01:09:15PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 8/13/13 12:53 PM, ianG wrote:
> > On 13/08/13 20:16 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >> On 8/13/13 11:02 AM, ianG wrote:
> >>> Super! I think a commercial operator is an essential step forward.
> >>
> >> How so? Centralization via commercial operators doesn't seem to have
> >> helped in the email space lately.
> >
> > Centralisation works when the server doesn't have any information of
> > value. Presumably the most that LeastAuthority.com can say is that a
> > certain company has X GB of documents and updates that set at rate Y.
> > Not a lot of value there...
>
> Although presumably there would be value in shutting down a
> privacy-protecting service just so that people can't benefit from it any
> longer. When the assumption is that everything must be public, any
> service that keeps some information non-public might be perceived as a
> threat.
>
> > The reason email space providers are suffering is that even when the
> > content is encrypted, the To: and From are not. This enables a fairly
> > dramatic capability -- seeing who's writing to whom. In contrast to the
> > bland GB number, this would provide all a business's customers, all a
> > dissident's contacts, all an insniding trader's leakees, etc etc...
>
> Sure, that problem is well-known by now. :-/ However, I'm not convinced
> that email providers have been shut down (or have done so proactively)
> only because they send around To and From addresses.
This comes to mind when I read that:
http://lavabit.com/
> Peter Saint-Andre
slainte mhath, RGB
--
Richard Guy Briggs -- ~\ -- ~\ <hpv.tricolour.net>
<www.TriColour.net> -- \___ o \@ @ Ride yer bike!
Ottawa, ON, CANADA -- Lo_>__M__\\/\%__\\/\%
Vote! -- <greenparty.ca>_____GTVS6#790__(*)__(*)________(*)(*)_________________
_______________________________________________
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@randombit.net
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
