Oops. Sorry, Dean, I've just seen your response and realised that I have added myself, by default, to the "glib dismissal" fraternity :^(
R Robin Wilton Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy Internet Society email: [email protected] Phone: +44 705 005 2931 Twitter: @futureidentity On 11 Dec 2012, at 17:00, Dean Willis wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Allison Mankin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Another non-onerous encryption approach I'm finding quite compelling: >> tcpcrypt (tcpcrypt.org). >> >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think there are in fact ways to have encryption that are not onerous to >> users. Secure HTTP encrypts, although having a standard certificate given >> everybody is not the most "private" way to do things. Diffie-Helman encrypts >> without user involvement. If we put our thinking caps on, I suspect we could >> find a way to encrypt that isn't onerous. >> > > Yes, I really like tcpcrypt in concept. The "security" people I've talked to > about tcpcrypt dismissed it rather glibly, but it seems to me that widespread > use of tcpcrypt is both feasible and rewarding in its impact on casual > inspection and consequent change of expectations. > > -- > Dean > _______________________________________________ > ietf-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
_______________________________________________ ietf-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
