[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5 |
Date: |
Fri, 07 Feb 2014 19:00:52 +0900 |
David Kastrup writes:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
> > That order means that not only do you have to turn over the drive, you
> > also have to give them the passphrases or PGP keys (as with GPLv3).
> > So it's irrelevant to this thread, which is about mechanisms to make
> > wiretapping less useful.
>
> Oh, but we are not talking about what this section is _intended_ to
> authorize (its own author is trying to gather support for shutting down
> its widely overreaching abuse) but rather what it is being used as an
> excuse for.
>
> And since it is easiest to overstep authority if nobody notices or is
> allowed to take notice, the main overreach in practice is clandestine
> eavesdropping using generic tools that can be employed without requiring
> billable hours by specialists for particular cases.
In case you hadn't noticed, we're in violent agreement on that last
point.
My point in this thread is that I think there is good reason to
believe that availability of the "facilities"[1] Ted proposes is
likely to make it *easier* for the FBI/NSA to snoop on some people who
are *trying* as hard as they know how to be secure, while not really
improving available security over the status quo for anybody.
That leaves us with the "if I can make security less of a PITA, more
people will try to be secure" argument, but I don't think it's strong
enough to override Stefan's objections.
> Mind you, he's been standing on the shoulders of giants. Carthage was
> not razed in a day.
Yeah, I know, I know. I give him credit for *being* black[2], but it
would seem that he's never had to live in fear of the cops the way my
black highschool classmates did. :-(
Footnotes:
[1] What's the difference between a "facility" and a "feature"?
[2] Yeah, I know it's bigoted but I still have a soft spot in my
heart for members of "oppressed minorities" who make it to the top
in spite of the glass ceiling.
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, (continued)
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/02/06
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, Ted Zlatanov, 2014/02/06
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/02/06
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, David Kastrup, 2014/02/07
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/02/07
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, David Kastrup, 2014/02/07
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, David Kastrup, 2014/02/07
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/02/07
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, Ted Zlatanov, 2014/02/07
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/02/07
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, Ted Zlatanov, 2014/02/07
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, Daiki Ueno, 2014/02/07
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, Ted Zlatanov, 2014/02/07
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, Daiki Ueno, 2014/02/08
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, Ted Zlatanov, 2014/02/08
- Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5, Daiki Ueno, 2014/02/05