[cryptography] Tahoe-LAFS developers' statement on backdoors

silky michaelslists at gmail.com
Wed Oct 6 19:42:50 EDT 2010


On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Zooko O'Whielacronx <zooko at zooko.com> wrote:
> http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-October/005353.html
> http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/docs/backdoors.txt
>
> Statement on Backdoors
>
> October 5, 2010
>
> The New York Times has recently reported that the current U.S.
> administration is proposing a bill that would apparently, if passed,
> require communication systems to facilitate government wiretapping and
> access to encrypted data:
>
>  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html (login required;
> username/password pairs available at
> http://www.bugmenot.com/view/nytimes.com).
>
> Commentary by the  Electronic Frontier Foundation
> (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/government-seeks ),  Peter
> Suderman / Reason
> (http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/27/obama-administration-frustrate ),
> Julian Sanchez / Cato Institute
> (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/designing-an-insecure-internet/ ).
>
> The core Tahoe developers promise never to change Tahoe-LAFS to
> facilitate government access to data stored or transmitted by it. Even
> if it were desirable to facilitate such access—which it is not—we
> believe it would not be technically feasible to do so without severely
> compromising Tahoe-LAFS' security against other attackers. [...]

How will you stand by this if it becomes illegal not to comply though?

-- 
silky

http://dnoondt.wordpress.com/

"Every morning when I wake up, I experience an exquisite joy — the joy
of being this signature."



More information about the cryptography mailing list