[cryptography] Tahoe-LAFS developers' statement on backdoors
rvh40 at insightbb.com
Wed Oct 6 23:44:18 EDT 2010
On Oct 6, 2010, at 11:38 PM, silky wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Randall <rvh40 at insightbb.com> wrote:
> [.The USG says it wants to have back doors into all encryption
>> 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
>> 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.
It's Open Source - how are you going to put a Back Door into it,
without anyone noticing?
I'm outta this thread. Let's see what Zooko has to say.
More information about the cryptography