Re: [TLS] chairs - please shutdown wiretapping discussion...

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 11/07/17 23:09, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Whether one party to a conversation (phone or IP) has the right to
> share private contents with a third party is a legal matter that
> varies from country to country and from state to state. I only claim
> that this draft does not change the fact that is true for PFS suites
> in TLS 1.x and for all suites in TLS 1.3, that it’s impossible to
> decrypt a recorded session without cooperation from either party, and
> that cooperation has to start *before*  the session is recorded.

But hang on, in this example wordpress.com are the equivalent
of the POTS carrier - why is it a wiretap in the POTS case and
not in the HTTP/TLS case? That makes no sense. Neither are a
callee/caller just the same as when my vanity domain is used
to transfer information between you and I via some wordpress
plug-in I've installed.

I do agree with the "*before*" statement and about optimisation
but an optimised-X is still an X.

S.

> 
> That is not the case for POTS wiretap or for the RSA key exchange.