<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 6:16 AM, Benjamin Kreuter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brk7bx@virginia.edu" target="_blank">brk7bx@virginia.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span>On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 21:37 -0700, Ryan Carboni wrote:<br>
> I mean, for instance. Do you think this email should be encrypted, or<br>
> simply authentificated?<br>
<br>
</span>Suppose a tyrant rises to power a few decades from now, and starts<br>
purging anyone who ever criticized him.  Suppose that tyrant is<br>
currently a local politician in your town.  You probably would regret<br>
sending unencrypted messages in which you call him a moron -- even more<br>
so if the messages were authenticated.<br>
<br>
My point is that deciding what is "important enough to encrypt" is<br>
awfully difficult.  We should instead be focusing on reducing the costs<br>
and inconvenience of encryption, so that we do not have to sit around<br>
wondering whether or not something is "worth encrypting."  This is<br>
nothing new but we have a long way to go and progress has been a bit<br>
slow.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra">OH NO, I MUST GET THE LIST MODERATOR TO PUT UP A ROBOTS.TXT FILE IN CASE THAT HAPPENS<br><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150416191405/http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2015-April/date.html" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20150416191405/http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2015-April/date.html</a><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">When 99% of the data you receive is a known plaintext, you are going to have to deal with several trade-offs. <br></div></div>
</div><br></div>