[Cryptography] "we need to protect [our dox] by at least encrypting them"

[Benjamin Kreuter]

On Sat, 2016-11-05 at 10:20 -0700, Henry Baker wrote:
> At 01:28 PM 11/4/2016, Arnold Reinhold wrote:
> > 
> > There is a policy question that has not been adequately discussed
> > in all the commotion about Hillary's email: to what extent does a
> > high government official require and deserve a confidential way to
> > communicate unclassified messages with others?  Yes, there is a
> > need to maintain a historical record, but while in office,
> > governmental leaders need privacy to carry out their duties.
> I'm going to disagree with your premises.
> 
> I have yet to see any evidence that *secret negotiations* are _ever_
> in the best interests of the ordinary citizen.

Does averting a nuclear war count?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis

Secrecy can certainly be abused, but the reality is that sometimes the
right thing to do is unpopular and would not be doable without some
secrecy.

Even ignoring extreme examples there is the fact that diplomacy often
involves a mix of repressive and democratic governments.  The
repressive governments will keep their negotiations with other
repressive governments secret; if the democratic governments did not,
it would put repressive regimes at an advantage.

Basically, the only world in which radical transparency would work is a
world in which nobody ever breaks any rules.  It is hard to imagine
something further from the world of diplomatic relations.

-- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 847 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20161106/689d27c1/attachment.sig>