Transport layer security in a Freeh country

[rishab@dxm.ernet.in]

It's nice to see some technical discussion for a change.

I guess one reason transport layer security seems irrelevant to Cypherpunks
is that it isn't secure. Not necessarily from a cryptographic point of view,
but in its procedure. For example, the Digital Telephony Bill avoided acting
against Internet providers _this_ time. Being provided by the carrier,
transport-layer security is succeptable to LEA arm-twisting. It may be so
even now despite DT's current form.

Such sabotaging of end-to-end security is much tougher, if not impossible,
and with end-to-end security, transport security is redundant and possibly
a painful overhead.

(This is quite apart from the other hassles - proxies need to be changed etc -
which only exist with transport security.)

As for James Donald's criticism of the IETF for not extending HTML to support
end-to-end security, well, MIME already exists.


"We know everything about you that we need to know" - Coleta Brueck, IRS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh                                "In between the breaths is
rishab@dxm.ernet.in                                  the space where we live"
rishab@arbornet.org                                        - Lawrence Durrell
Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410  
Voicemail +91 11 3760335                 H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA