[Cryptography] Dark Mail Alliance specs?

Peter Fairbrother zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk
Sat Mar 29 14:03:10 EDT 2014

On 29/03/14 02:30, ianG wrote:
> On 26/03/2014 23:05 pm, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>> However, I am of the firm opinion that if it isn't compatible with
>> ordinary email then it won't get widely adopted, full stop.
> Facebook, Skype, Snapchat, whatsapp and the apple thing (facetime?) says
> otherwise, but perhaps the language has changed?
> Of course, we can all agree or disagree on what "widely adopted" means.
> My view is, whatever definition you come up with, it will be
> self-selecting.  The younger generation don't use email, except when
> forced to by schools.

Or by work.

But the first objective is:  "1) to eventually get a majority of all 
email sent end-to-end encrypted to a minimum security standard".

Older folks, and especially businesses, just plain ain't going to give 
up on email.

A different objective might be "to get a majority of asynchronous 
internet communications sent in end-to-end encrypted form", and while 
that's one I'd support, it's a much bigger bite.

Note that of the social media systems you mention, only a small 
proportion of skype calls are end-to-end encrypted (by a secret 
proprietary system), and even that may be changing or have already 
changed where you are, Gubbmint wants to at least be able to see Skype 

Here in the UK there have recently been calls to change the law to make 
interception of the other media you mentioned easier by installing "deep 
packet inspection" boxes, controlled by GCHQ, to most internet lines..

> Africa doesn't use the web, they use phones.
> Email can't be eliminated from spam without fixing one of two things:
> free of cost and free of identity.

Yup. However end-to-end encryption does increase cost, if only a little 
-  so perhaps encrypted message may be seen as more valuable than 
unencrypted messages.

-- Peter Fairbrother

More information about the cryptography mailing list