Re: [perpass] commentariat (was: Re: SMTP and SRV records)

[Robin Wilton <[e-mail]>]

Robin Wilton
Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy
Internet Society

email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Twitter: @futureidentity

On 25 Nov 2015, at 13:56, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> subject line change...
> 
> On 25/11/15 13:28, Robin Wilton wrote:
>> I’m sure I’m not the only one who has been depressed by a lot of the
>> public discourse on this topic (present list definitely excepted!),
>> and the lack of clarity/understanding demonstrated by much of it
>> (this being a lamentable case in point:
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/12008689/Why-is-Silicon-Valley-helping-the-tech-savvy-jihadists.html
>> ).
> 
> While I agree that that kind of article is a pain, it's entirely
> predictable, partly understandable but IMO, as it's an attempt to
> defy logic and what are basically laws of physics (crytpo is just
> math in the end and the rest is a mere matter of programming), it
> is also bound to fail, in most places and for most of the time.
> 
> We and others have written about why such ideas are wrong,
> and will continue to do so, but I don't think we should worry
> too much about every single flurry of articles like that. And
> there will be such a flurry after every unfortunate or
> deplorable incident, as that is also in the nature of things.

Absolutely; the focus shouldn’t be on countering clueless journalists so much as ensuring that we are clear about our terms, that our discussion and outputs reflect that clarity, and that we make it easier for more and more people (in diverse audiences) to understand the relevant nuances.
> 
> But, just to take one example, I'd bet the UK govt will wise up
> somewhat when they finally get that they risk exporting their
> financial services industry if they muck with crypto in the ways
> that article would indicate. (I had a chat with some Irish
> industrial dev. types, and that was the angle that most interested
> them:-)

+1… but even the “economic policy” argument can get derailed (or at least lose force) if govt types don’t get, for instance, the difference between link and E2E encrypted comms.
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> PS: And anyway it's the telegraph - did we expect tech clue? :-)

No. No we did not.  ;^\

> 
>