[cryptography] Tahoe-LAFS developers' statement on backdoors

silky michaelslists at gmail.com
Wed Oct 6 23:04:06 EDT 2010

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Randall Webmail <rvh40 at insightbb.com> wrote:
> From: silky <michaelslists at gmail.com>
>>> 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?
> The USG can come down on PKZIP Inc, but how are they going to harass an Open Source project?   (Especially one with no particular Home Office or Agent For Service of Process)?

Eh? I don't see why the project being "Open Source" has any relevancy.
If it's not based in America, then I agree I don't understand the law
there (but then I also don't understand why Zooko would make any
statement at all, if the whole thing was irrelevant for him).

I'm just trying to understand the level of commitment this statement
belies. What happens when a given project refuses to comply with what
may be *law*? Jail? I don't know. Intrigued to understand the



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

More information about the cryptography mailing list