On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Andreas Krey <a.k...@gmx.de> wrote: > ... > Put new clients into the next instance of this service, formally > operated by someone else?
you say this like there's an inexhaustible supply of dedicated individuals / volunteers able to administer a business entity / incorporation each with enough autonomy and self sufficiency to avoid conspiracy charges ... ;) i am skeptical this can scale in any meaningful sense; still better than nothing? > ... > Lawful intercepts also include the access metadata (which I assume to > be equally secure here), and access to the emails themselves. While > encrypted the service still has to know source and destination to > some extent. the joy of email is that you defer hard problems like unlinkability, psuedonymity, anonymity to lower layers where possible. i agree that "pen register" and other metadata is just as critical to privacy as content - perhaps more so given the lack of constraints around access to "pen register" metadata. did i mention this is a hard problem? > I guess under NSLs this could be construed as publishing same, > so the NSL effectively forces you to stay in business. "Due to circumstances outside our control we are no longer able to provide customers with quality service. Effective immediately. [datetimestamp]" _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
