what is killing PKI?

[Faramir]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

El 25-08-2012 10:33, Stan Tobias escribió:
> As this thread is turning into a general discussion on privacy and 
> encryption, I would like just to add one more to the garden of
> thoughts.

  Sure, as long no moderator gets pissed off, I think it is good to
discuss a bit about the "why" from time to time. Of course, the list
is devoted to discussing the "how".

...
> Faramir wrote:
>> IMHO, the main trouble probably is people don't feel the need to 
>> protect their privacy. If they don't feel that need, why should
>> they bother in learning, or even asking about privacy software?
> 
> Some time ago, reading a discussion I noticed this particular 
> argument against encrypting file-sharing traffic, which can be 
> summarized/paraphrased as:
> 
> "We don't want encryption, we want file-sharing be legal."
> 
> It's a strong political statement.  While privacy is important,
> you don't win anything if you *have to* hide.  Freedom is often
> fought for by asserting your rights.

  Well, sure, but there are some other instances that are unrelated to
freedom, like sharing you baby pictures... Or the increasing cases
when a woman sends a picture of her in underwear to her boyfriend, and
the picture ends on the news, causing her to lose her job. While we
can argue the women did nothing wrong, and the one that must be
punished is the person that disclosured a private picture, well, the
fact is given the nature of internet, if you don't want Eve seeing
your pictures, you need to send them encrypted somehow. Even if Eve is
the only unauthorized person that saw the picture, one unauthorized
person watching the picture is already an undesired case, even if the
picture is not published anywhere.

...
>> might be complemented by a banner saying "I'm NOT SHOWING my
>> body, it's just I'm NOT HIDING it".
>> 
>> But first we need to save money to pay the fines.
> ^^^^^^^                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This.  I wonder how certain
> societies got convinced that just being nude - the most natural,
> beautiful and human thing - was indecent and/or illegal.  Surely
> not because everyone was dressed?  Or?

  I think it is very likely it was because everyone was dressed... I
mean, clothes are not transparent, and are very useful to keep people
warm. It also protects the body against scratches (if you are a
caveman, surely the walls of your "house" are not soft).

  Best Regards

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJQOfv+AAoJEMV4f6PvczxASB4H/0v/Dv5J2la68BEQHwnZoD3m
l1KXA4ZzD0CcDFFJL9AiHKKN80Cx00PzKxhkbz6yxFYdiJd+TR2p55UYaJ3AoRRX
41zjSChXpiZan+SKtQxV6sgJZAbX0sCqZ/QDCB2D1o3igkwvhB3QoFCF4pBaA+yj
KJXpzYoj4E7PN0bbH38MrlmQnAOqYw/ps+dkz3m0XzuPe6O8z0Czh3WKMKiew2MW
D8Qyjy4XZeQ7dDgOy7CNFFzm+Gng3dOnOA5atEDi50OyC5rl+xPF2cXasadZWIdi
a1XaMJ3ztEvt1JltkBLq6Ohy2vP/Q3g5+WggWe03Ts8HALllNEtcfl3EaKPz0EQ=
=xZeH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----