On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Ian G i...@iang.org wrote:
On 18/09/11 8:38 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:07 PM, M.R.makro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/09/11 09:16, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
The problem is that people will probably die
due Digitar's failure.
I am not the
M.R. makro...@gmail.com writes:
No one actively working against a government that is known to engage in
extra-legal killings will trust SSL secured e-mail to protect him or her from
the government surveillance.
That's a non-sequitur. What you're saying is that no-one working in an
environment
On 17/09/11 14:03, Peter Gutmann wrote:
... What you're saying is that no-one working in an
environment where they actually need SSL should trust SSL.
I honestly don't understand why you would say ...where they
actually need SSL
Let's first assume we agree on what we mean by various
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:07 PM, M.R. makro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/09/11 09:16, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
The problem is that people will probably die
due Digitar's failure.
I am not the one to defend DigiNotar, but I would not make such
dramatic assumption.
I don't think DigiNotar has any
Just to clarify things, let's put a face on the phenomenon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/syrian-activist-ghiyath-matars-death-spurs-grief-debate/2011/09/14/gIQArgq8SK_story.html
Before you say It's the dissident's fault, everyone obviously does, or
should, understand that SSL
On 17/09/11 3:07 AM, M.R. wrote:
On 16/09/11 09:16, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
The problem is that people will probably die
due Digitar's failure.
I am not the one to defend DigiNotar, but I would not make such
dramatic assumption.
No one actively working against a government that is known to
