On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 01:09:15PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 8/13/13 12:53 PM, ianG wrote: > > On 13/08/13 20:16 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> On 8/13/13 11:02 AM, ianG wrote: > >>> Super! I think a commercial operator is an essential step forward. > >> > >> How so? Centralization via commercial operators doesn't seem to have > >> helped in the email space lately. > > > > Centralisation works when the server doesn't have any information of > > value. Presumably the most that LeastAuthority.com can say is that a > > certain company has X GB of documents and updates that set at rate Y. > > Not a lot of value there... > > Although presumably there would be value in shutting down a > privacy-protecting service just so that people can't benefit from it any > longer. When the assumption is that everything must be public, any > service that keeps some information non-public might be perceived as a > threat. > > > The reason email space providers are suffering is that even when the > > content is encrypted, the To: and From are not. This enables a fairly > > dramatic capability -- seeing who's writing to whom. In contrast to the > > bland GB number, this would provide all a business's customers, all a > > dissident's contacts, all an insniding trader's leakees, etc etc... > > Sure, that problem is well-known by now. :-/ However, I'm not convinced > that email providers have been shut down (or have done so proactively) > only because they send around To and From addresses.
This comes to mind when I read that: http://lavabit.com/ > Peter Saint-Andre slainte mhath, RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs -- ~\ -- ~\ <hpv.tricolour.net> <www.TriColour.net> -- \___ o \@ @ Ride yer bike! Ottawa, ON, CANADA -- Lo_>__M__\\/\%__\\/\% Vote! -- <greenparty.ca>_____GTVS6#790__(*)__(*)________(*)(*)_________________ _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography