> 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.
I agree 100%.
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).
Insisting on encryption != opportunistic encryption. And yes, if they require
it, that's bad for exactly the same reasons it would be bad for the IETF to do
so.
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.
Exactly right. But if we can do it in a way that causes those with the ability
to upgrade to an encrypted connection to do so, that's not a bad thing.
Ned