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

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Mon Nov 7 16:38:57 EST 2016

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Henry Baker <hbaker1 at pipeline.com> wrote:
> I have yet to see any evidence that *secret negotiations* are _ever_ in the best interests of the ordinary citizen.  When Alice & Bob negotiate in secret, they usually give away Joe's gold watch rather than Alice's or Bob's (Joe, of course, not being in the room and hence unable to protect his interests).

> Among other problems with diplomatic secrecy, the sh*t really hits the fan when diplomatic cables are "accidently" released

> If the crypto community really wants to help improve the art of diplomacy, it could design games/negotiations that are completely auditable, so that all back-stabbing becomes transparent.

+1. Be *extremely* careful who you are teaching to encrypt and reducing
their audit surface, such as corrupt politicians... or any politician for that
matter... lest they begin to use it when you're not in the room... against you.
Performing (daily / overall) role as a public servant, particularly in domestic
(not foreign) issues, arguably has miniscule need for comms encryption.
Need for authentication yes. Don't get locked out of your own board meeting.

oblig cc modless list, in protest, again.

More information about the cryptography mailing list