3 ms·
Yes, I was going to mention that but first you need #2 done since, as we have seen with Lavabit, End to End encryption is no good if one end can be forced to su
by rurounijones 13y ago
Yes, I was going to mention that but first you need #2 done since, as we have seen with Lavabit, End to End encryption is no good if one end can be forced to surrender their keys.
- Coffeewine 13y agoThat applies much less to non-US entities communicating to other non-US entities who happen to have significant bandwidth between them running through the United States.
- cabalamat 13y ago> since, as we have seen with Lavabit, End to End encryption is no good if one end can be forced to surrender their keys. I'm not sure I made myself clear: my position is that the encryption needs to be done on each end-user's PC, not on some centralised service such as Lavabit. While the USA could extract the secrets from one person, if that person is living in the USA, it is harder fro them to do so to people outside the USA. Although they could burgle people's houses and extract information that way, it doesn't scale and they certainly couldn't do it to all the people in a country.
- rurounijones 13y agoAh right, I do not consider that a feasible thing right now. How would facebook (or the non US equivalent) work if data was encrypted on everyone's PC. There is no PKI that would support that at the moment (Although a social network that also acts as a PKI is an interesting idea.)
- gngeal 13y agoas we have seen with Lavabit, End to End encryption is no good if one end can be forced to surrender their keys. Lavabit was the middleman in the communication, not the end; or was it?
- rurounijones 13y agoI am talking on the network level. Connection between client and server.