3 ms·
Sounds a bit to me like part of a FUD campaign or at least bluster to scare off people from seeking out tools that help protect privacy. But it does highlight a
by sprucely 11y ago
Sounds a bit to me like part of a FUD campaign or at least bluster to scare off people from seeking out tools that help protect privacy. But it does highlight a need for these tools to become more ubiquitous.
- chias 11y agoI had the exact same reaction. Either way, though, it's a good indication that perhaps combining PGP with steganography is a good way to go, at least for now.
- derefr 11y agoSomething similar has also been my thought re: Internet providers forcing TLS root certs on you to MITM you. Even if, at some dystopian point in the future, ISPs stop allowing traffic they can't MITM through their networks, you can always accept their root cert into your OS's TLS stack... and then just turn around and: 1. configure your browser to use a separate CA store from the OS one; 2. set up a VPN tunnel to a jumping-off-point not within your ISP's reach; 3. hide that tunnel's traffic steganographically within a regular "encrypted but actually MITMed" connection to your VPN server. These three steps could even be put together into a little middlebox to put between your home router and the Internet, so each device could keep its OS-level CA store sane, while still appearing to the ISP that everything is regular MITM-able traffic.