Le 29 sept. 2014 à 00:38, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> a écrit : >> It doesn't visibly and directly improve the life of people. In the big >> scheme of things, it gives an additional layer of security on their >> communications, but not privacy. > > It gives privacy from passive and active network attackers, no?
This is not what privacy is and that's one of the issues. You are talking about security not privacy. Privacy is not technical, it's a social agency of behaviors and laws. If you would like an example, there is a bridge in Ottawa (Ontario) which links to Gatineau (Québec) in Canada. On one side of the bridge (Ontario), you can take a portrait of the person and publishes it. On the other side (Québec), you are forbidden to take that pictures and publishes without authorization. This is not based on trust. This is privacy. :) Secure communications are important and your proposal is important, but there are social costs and benefits in securing systems. It's not just a matter of saying let's do it. So I would love to see why you would like to do this and in which circumstances, what are the constraints around it, etc. Not only a "Yeah bullet-proof vests are cheap these days, let's go out with them, instead of changing the guns law." -- Karl Dubost, Mozilla http://www.la-grange.net/karl/moz _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
