From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5 Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 19:00:52 +0900 Message-ID: <87iosrmecr.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87ha8f3jt1.fsf@building.gnus.org> <87ppn2qz0f.fsf@building.gnus.org> <87y51qcace.fsf@lifelogs.com> <874n4e3rkm.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87txcdd6d0.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87wqh8n877.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87lhxocvfq.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87sirwmgd9.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87d2j0ck3q.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87r47fn0br.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87ob2jiffc.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87lhxnmm0x.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k3d7i9rt.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1391767276 11465 80.91.229.3 (7 Feb 2014 10:01:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:01:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 07 11:01:19 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WBiFL-0002nE-G5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:01:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40480 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBiFL-0004Li-47 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 05:01:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33824) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBiF9-0004Aq-It for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 05:01:13 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBiF3-0002R9-Px for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 05:01:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:40425) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBiEx-0002QA-5S; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 05:00:55 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 323BB97069B; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:00:52 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 27CA41A2794; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:00:52 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <87k3d7i9rt.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta34) "kale" 2a0f42961ed4 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 130.158.97.224 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:169456 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > "Stephen J. Turnbull" 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.