Storing secrets on other people's computers

[Jerome Baum]

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 00:46, Robert J. Hansen <rjh at sixdemonbag.org> wrote:

> Because the _New York Times_ keeps records of all the papers it's ever
> published.  It can be seen as a highly effective, if low-tech, long-term
> archival solution.  Paperkey the private certificate, publish it in the NYT,
> verify the accuracy of the published certificate, and presto: your key is
> archived for the next 100+ years.
>

Now, this would be the kind of cost involved with keeping the key secret --
you have to archive it. I would consider that cost pretty small, but YMWV
("your mileage *will* vary"). As I said, as soon as there is any cost -- and
there is always a cost from a theoretical standpoint -- then there is a
trade-off.

That said, publishing it here should serve the purpose well -- gnupg-users
publicly archived, and the Internet Archive probably archives the public
archives, as does Google, etc. -- but(!) see below.


> Honestly, half the reason why I volunteer to publish my certificate in the
> NYT is for precisely this reason.  I think it'd be kind of cool to (a) have
> the NYT be my data archive, and (b) get someone else to pay for it.  :)
>

That's the caveat with publishing on the web -- you loose the coolness
factor. Besides what I said, I entirely agree and am entirely convinced -- I
just hate empty statements -- and it would be sooo cool to get a key
published.

-- 
Jerome Baum

tel +49-1578-8434336
email jerome at jeromebaum.com
-- 
PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A
PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110506/820e7c46/attachment.htm>