[cryptography] Tahoe-LAFS developers' statement on backdoors

silky michaelslists at gmail.com
Wed Oct 6 23:38:04 EDT 2010


On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Randall <rvh40 at insightbb.com> wrote:

[...]

>>>> 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).
>
> The USG says it wants to have back doors into all encryption programs.
>  They could have put Phil Zimmerman in prison and bankrupted PKZIP, Inc. if
> they liked - but what leverage do they have against an Open Source project,
> which by its very nature has no domicile and no developer (like Phil)
> against whom to apply coercion?

I don't see how this follows purely from it being Open Source. All
projects have developers, otherwise there is no project.

But anyway, it's probably a beyond my depth, and I don't want to
pollute this thread with my uninformed comments on the matter; mainly
I'm interested in hearing from Zooko or any of the developers
addressing exactly what they would do if "pressed" to implement this.
If the response is that they will never even *be* pressed, I don't see
the purpose of the statement.

-- 
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