[140537] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Why the poor uptake of encrypted email?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nicolas Williams)
Fri Dec 19 13:36:27 2008
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:35:44 -0600
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>
Cc: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>, cryptography@metzdowd.com,
StealthMonger@nym.mixmin.net, Alec.Muffett@sun.com
In-Reply-To: <4949BE3D.8000104@echeque.com>
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. Although I am sure
> that Skype would play ball with any bunch of goons that
> put forward a plausible justification, or threated to
> rip their fingernails off, most government agencies find
> it difficult to deal with anyone that they cannot
> casually have thrown in jail - dealing with equals is
> not part of their mindset. So if your threat model does
> not include the FBI and the CIA, chances are that the
> people who are threatening you will lack the
> organization and mindset to get Skype's cooperation.
That's also true for e-mail where the only encryption is in the
transport. Except that you tend to store your e-mails and not your
phone calls, of course. But you could always encrypt your filesystem
and not your e-mail itself, and that way avoid all the portability
issues that Alec brought up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
