> From: ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com
> In light of the sentiments expressed at the plenary and in perpass in
> regards to opportunistic encryptions, perhaps this is the dogfood we
> should be eating.
Yes, encrypting publicly available documents will do so much to increase our
privacy.
Look, I've got nothing against increasing privacy, but encrypting everything
is neither a privacy panacea, nor without costs/hassles.
E.g. Wikipedia now insists on sending me to HTTPS: versions of _all_ their
pages (I guess to protect against a MITM corrupting the content - since the
content is totally public, I can't figure out what else good they think it
does - although HTTPS doesn't really do that good a job at that). Problem is
that for one of my browsers, it somehow can't get the certificates right, so
every time I go to Wikipedia I get a zillion pop-ups complaining about
certificate problems. Irony is, of course, that in some counties the whole
site is just plain totally blocked.
That's just an _example_ of the downside of 'encrypt everything, all the
time'.
And I can't wait until national governments start deciding that 'encrypt
everything, all the time' violates their sovreignty, and they start blocking
encrypted content from crossing their borders...
Noel