2 ms·

With the commodification of free and automated certificates, I'd argue that authorities become less and less tech savvy: There is little to no money in the busi

With the commodification of free and automated certificates, I'd argue that authorities become less and less tech savvy: There is little to no money in the business sector, which means there's less possibility to keep technical people around. Also, I am surprised what exactly is making you think that the baseline requirements do not exist for security reasons (even if it isn't exclusively about cryptographic security).

toyg 5y ago
> With the commodification of free and automated certificates, I'd argue that authorities become less and less tech savvy That's not what I meant. The point is that, as time passes, more and more people are involved in political decision-making who understand how tech works. > what exactly is making you think that the baseline requirements do not exist for security reasons Once you move out of the nitty-gritty of crypto tech, "security" is in the eye of the beholder. Is a solution more "secure", for society at large, if it allows terrorists to communicate undisturbed? You might say yes, others might say no. There isn't an absolute scale there. Choosing trust is one of those areas where the solution is political, not technical, hence forever debatable. So a statement implying that one set of compromises is "less secure" just because it moves trust from certain subjects to other ones (more formally accountable, in this case), is simply not objectively true, and really meant to muddle the waters.