On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 06:57:23AM -0000, Michael van Elst wrote: > >(1) having an unencrypted option at all is one of the ways spooks like > >to weaken cryptosystems; it creates ways to force/cause people to use > >it when they didn't mean to. > > People have to be very clear in making that choice and they actually > use it for a reason. > > Consider the alternatives that are much weaker and don't protect > anything at all. > > Or consider the alternative to create separate tools that satisfy > the requirements that the HPN patch was created for. Will that be > better?
It is better, yes, because it's much harder to engage an entirely different tool by trickery. > Also consider that people believe their data is safe in the current > virtualized world, just because someone calls "encryption". True, but that's not a reason to make the situation worse. > >(2) if you don't encrypt everything, you're telling anyone who's > >listening which data's important. > > Gung znxrf lbhe choyvpnyyl fgngrq bcvavba abg vzcbegnag? V qba'g xabj nobhg lbh, ohg V cbfgrq vg bire na rapelcgrq frffvba, naq gurfr qnlf n ybg bs gur genafcbeg vf rapelcgrq gbb. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org