Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:i've been hoping for it for years (Score 1) 601

> I once needed access to a credit card i'd left at home with my folks.
> I relised i had no way of communicating it securely. In the end we
> had to split the transaction of that info over email and a voip call.

This is where you could use an (emergency) one-time pad. Stuff a few small sheets in your wallet on your travels, preferably waterproof, and leave the corresponding pads at home. You can now communicate short messages in ultimate security regardless of medium.

Comment Re:well (Score 1) 601

> If you suddenly start using encryption, it'll throw up a big flag.

> If you've always been using strong encryption, then there's no
> change in behavior to be noticed.

Yes, and if you suddenly stop sending plain-text messages for three months (because you are on vacation), your behavior will be interpreted as you having gone underground plotting to overthrow the free world.

Seriously, where do you come up with stuff like that? That's what I call a paranoid mindset, not the person's, who wants to simply use crypto to keep his/her privacy!

Comment Re:PGP Key Server and Privacy (Score 1) 601

> It strikes me that they have no trouble with the common practice to
> list name and e-mail address on one of the PGP key servers

> I would also really like to use PGP but I don't want my details listed
> on one of these servers.

I had this gripe myself, for the same reasons I decline being listed in the phone book. I send my public key to interested people directly, usually after a couple plain-text exchanges. This doesn't, however, protect me from having someone else upload the key to a key server. What is needed, IMHO, is a "NO KEY SERVER" option in the public key, that, when present, will cause key servers to just discard any such uploaded key and not list it publicly.

In the meantime, you can always use a pseudonym as name on your key. The people you know you can easily explain that to and the people you don't know don't care anyway since they have no way of verifying in normal interactions.

Comment Re:What's the point (Score 1) 601

> But who you are talking to cannot be encrypted, and that is almost
> as valuable as the contents.

Actually it can. Research remailers and NYM accounts.

And you are correct about the implications of traffic analysis in even the most benign message (content)!

Comment Re:I don't use it for the encryption (Score 1) 601

> A major issue is key exchange of course

It shouldn't be. First there's keyservers, second, this could also be done by the mail client. Incoming e-mail signed with unknown key? MUA should automatically prepare a "Send public key!" reply. This could even be in the background without user intervention. Also the sending of the key in response could, and perhaps should, be automated. Message with key arrived? MUA - Import! Solved!

Security issues do not apply here really. You can only ever verify keys with people you actually know or at least meet in person. Everything else you just have to take on faith anyway...or two or so intermediate introducers.

Comment Re:Same thing in Slovenia (Score 4, Interesting) 349

> I asked our beloved SAZAS about this matter. The question
> specifically was: what was your opinion on playing open-source /
> cc music in a waiting room? The reply was that since all authors
> must report to SAZAS and report their incomes and creative
> commons authors do not, such music was illegal in Slovenia.

I'd love to see that go to trial! And then to Strasbourg...

Slashdot Top Deals

Receiving a million dollars tax free will make you feel better than being flat broke and having a stomach ache. -- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"

Working...