That might work.. However, nothing prevents the webmail javascript from reporting your passphrase back to the mothership.

Why would I be surprised by that? The Universal Access Fee for POTS telephone was levied to subsidise the costs of regulation, and to support the enforcement of regulation on the telecom industry to assure the availability of telephone services in rural areas.

This kind of action is very similar, but does not, nor is it intended to, provide universal access to the internet. Instead, it just puts restrictions on what ISPs are allowed to do with traffic passing through.

The question is weather the small tax is better than the extortion. I believe it is.

You misunderstand AC.

The FCC, once given regulatory authority, has the regulatory authority, and can make or amend regulations as it sees fit, having been given the authority.

Capture is a very real threat.

And yet you contine to be bent out of shape about it. Fancy that.

----

I already addressed this. TWICE.

The option is binary. Either the webmail server has the keys, or the messages are decrypted on the client side using keys stored on the client side for presentation.

If the keys are stored on the wemail server, the NSA can demand them.

If the keys are stored on the client, then the main feature of webmail is broken.

They keys have to be stored SOMEPLACE for the messages to be encrypted and decrypted. The primary statement in my postings has been that properly secured encrypted email is not compatible with the use case of webmail. Webmail's use case is "email access that is independant on client platform, as long as a suitable browser is present" As soon as you put the keys on the client side, this goes away, because now the browser has to probe the local filesystem for the key store, or the browser itself has to have the keystore. This has all the problems of Enigmail for Thunderbird, (Or the GPG plugins for any of the other capable mail clients out there.) The keys are stored on a trusted workstation, that you cant just lug around with you-- OR-- if stored on a keyfob, accessing those keys requires extra steps above and beyond just logging in and checking your mail. This breaks the use case for webmail.

Rather than being an argumentative troll, you could explain your position instead of arguing impotently. Instead, you chose to complain about spelling mistakes, confabulate, and hurl ad-hominems.

To return your trite quip, I already knew that this is what you would do. Resorting to arguments about improper grammar, spelling mistakes, or improper word use is the hallmark of somebody with nothing of real substance to contribute, who instead just likes to feel superior. Congratulations.

You misunderstand my political affiliation.

I am unaffiliated. (and centrist)

I like the concept of the ACA, but not the implementation. (which as you correctly stated, is currently little more than compulsory spending.) There are better methods than the one used by the ACA to achieve the goal of universal healthcare. I would have rather it had taken one of those other forms. It didnt. That's the way it is now.

Rather than try to read some party slant into the comparison, instead see it from a foriegner's point of view-- somebody with little to no invested interest in government pork in the USA, but who has interests as a member of the global community, and the power the US Govt has internationally.

I noted that recently, the republican party has been obstructing anything and everything it considers as a possible threat to earning potential of large corporations (and religious matters that it really has no business being involved with, but still does anyway.). This takes the form of everything from regulations intended to help combat global climate change and pollution in general, laws covering the safety and efficacy of medications, immigration and labor markets, and- That's right, Rent seeking vs net neutrality.

Without exception, the GOP has been obstructionist to a very high degree, with obamacare (the ACA) being the crown jewel in feats of obstruction. I could very well have pointed to the GOP's massive campaign of misinformation, outright smear tactics, and political engineering concerning the public's understanding of global climate change instead, but the ACA had more parallels, which is why I used it.

Again, not because of any intrinsic political slant.

(The Democrats are equally dirty, with their affiliations with the MPAA, the RIAA, bids for censorship "For the children", and many other unsavory things. They just haven't gone off the deep-end with obstruction like the GOP have.)

Precisely. Since the regulations the FCC have in mind have yet to be implemented, regulatory capture is still an unknown. I WORRY about capture, because it leads to hell, as you pointed out.

I said this decision "Sounds good"-- Regulation is better than no regulation, as you correctly stated.

Our goals are perfectly aligned in this matter.

I was noting the seemingly short level of resistance that the political group with the most incentive to cause regulatory capture problems has put up. To me, this suggests that the strategy they will attempt involves capturing the regulator, and thus gain more control than they would have held if no regulatitory body was active. (Hell.)

It is my greatest hope that the FCC tells such people where they can shove it, and enacts correct, fair, and effective regulations in the public's interests-- and not regulations that are bankrupt, intentionally defective, and aligned with some OTHER group's interests.

That's not entirely truthful, from what I remember reading.

The links were allowed to become congested alright, because Verizon and Comcast refused to upgrade them when they did upgrades elsewhere, and told Netflix in no uncertain terms that they would not upgrade them unless the extortion payment was met.

It also glosses over what I read, in that neflix offered co-location of local cache servers INSIDE those networks, to reduce the effects of congested links, whch both verizon and comcast refused.

The pedant pedant's antecedant was to see the point but fail to heed it.

Or

How getting bent out of shape over a simple and common mispelling exposes you as little more than a jackass that cant parse slightly malformed inputs.

------------

The government most certainly does track that messages were sent, and to what mail servers. (That's what they get at the backbone level). However, actually reading the messages sent requires a key. Correctly providing keys for security purposes implies a secure method of delivery-- such as sneakernet. Something that unless the government has developed ESP, they will not be able to obtain without a warrant, which requires probable cause/evidence to have issued, which would require that they have readable documentation and evidence for a specific criminal activity. Simply transmitting and recieving encrypted data is not a crime, and so they shouldnt be able to get one for that purpose.

The NSA and pals like to abuse national security letters to get things that they cant get warrants for, like fishing expeditions like the proposed problem. They would have to issue a national security letter to the key holder (The person sending the messages!) to get the keys, which would of course, alert that person that they were being investigated, which is counter-intuitive to their investigational process.

Basically, while they can hoover up the encrypted message bodies, unless they have the keys, they have to invest considerable resources to decrypt the messages. When coupled with widespread adoption, this makes the bulk collection methodology too costly to be viable, which is the whole point.

Putting the keys on the webmail server allows the NSA to send that central point of contact a single national security letter demanding those keys, without alerting the users of that service that their security has been compromised. This is against the purpose of having secure communication.

This is good in both interpretations.

The first way, it prevents companies from extorting money from the public.

The second way, it prevents companies from treating the public like a second class customer, and forces providers to improve service globally, when they offer improvements in connectivity.

I fail to see the downside, unless you think that people with shittons of money should get treated differently than people without shittons of money.

It remains to be seen if the resulting regulatory action will be detrimental.

If your only concern is the financial costs, and/or, the reduction of hypothetical profits, then this discussion is over before it even started. The issue at hand is over the continuance of the internet as a viable medium for the kinds of exchanges it has historically facilitated. This action simply preserves the golden goose, and keeps greedy companies from gutting it.

This sounds good-- but I wonder just what form that regulation will take, and what level of regulatory capture will emerge.

The republicans gave up too easily. Look how long and drawn out their battle against Obamacare was. In comparison, this measure seems to have been abandoned without much fight. I can't help but wonder why.

webmail is ideologically incompatible with the very notion of secure communication that using encryption embodies.

To whit--

A webmail service holds not only the inbox itself, but also holds the contact list, and the presentation code. If one were to integrate encryption as well, then the webmail service would also have to manage keys, both private and public. Handing out BOTH keys is the very essence of insecure, but would be necessary. (The webmail service would need the private key to decrypt messages sent to you, coded with your public key, so it can display them! It would also need your public key if you wanted to read what was in your "sent" folder.) It would also need to hold all the public keys of all your contacts.

That's just one national security letter away from "Oh, sorry, we gave all those keys we had on file to the NSA, and couldnt tell you about it!" and one data breach away from a massive chain of trust catastrophe by identiy thieves (or worse).

Webmail is fundamentally incompatible with the very idea of secure communication of this type. This is something that you simply CANT put "In the cloud", because the main feature of webmail is being able to check it anywhere you can use a web browser. That feature goes away if the service does security correctly, and security goes away if the feature is retained. (To keep the keys outside of the webmail service, the keys would have to be stored on trusted workstations, or on a personal keystore on a portable device, like a USB keyfob-- Not all places with browser access will have provisions for this, and the added complexity will make users pissy. Putting the keys on the webmail server side fixes that problem, but destroys the security model fundamentally.)

small operation businesses often source cots equipment, and cant afford a dedicated IT dept to produce and maintain system images.

this means they get crapware in a business seting.

Metal grain boundries change if you heat the metal up. This also removes the temper, but rapid heating followed by rapid cooling (Such as by very high speed friction sanding, then submersion in water or oil) will change the crystal grain structure of the metal pretty deeply if done right.

Failing that, sanding off the top layer, then applying heat with a heat gun for a few minutes, then clenching with a cold oil pour will have the same effect, but more reliably.

Seriously, this is how heat treatment of steels works. Steels and other metal alloys go through various phases of crystal growth types under different temperature and pressure environments. They grow when hot (but not molten) which is why the metal weakens. If you heat it up hot enough, this processes changes into annealing where the crystals break down from thermal forces and the metal becomes amorphous. Flash cooling results in a densely packed matrix of tiny metal grains, which strengthens the metal.

Seriously-- all you have to do is alter the crystal growth pattern under where the serial number was. Heat treatment will do exactly that.

I wish I had your optimism.

From where I sit, the world is driven by one thing, and one thing only. The shameless desire to appropriate ever greater of material goods and or physical pleasures, by those with the means to appropriate them, at the expense of everyone else.

Take for instance, the cellphone industry.

The trend there is not to create an adaptive, versatile phone that manifests true quality of workmanship and forward thinking-- Such a device would be sold once, and would stick around far too long, reducing potential future sales figures. Instead, the devices are marketed with currently popular gimmick technologies, and are basically just hardware wrappers for ephemeral software products which can be artificially obscoleted, and thus force the consumer to keep buying, so that the operators of the cellphone manufacturing industry can continue to make money. (which may or may not be for the purpose of enriching investors, whp's only contribution is putting up some of their own financial power to fascilitate this collection of wealth, with the promise of getting their money back with interest.)

At no point in this process is it ever considered that 100% automation will destroy this cycle, as no return flow of currency into the market will happen after that point. When people arent employed (or even employable!), they don't get paid any money, and thus they have no money to spend to buy the prodcuts produced. Money only works when it is widely distributed amongst many hands. 100% automation would effectively transter 100% of all money to only a very few hands.

I hold a more prosaic view about the worth of people than is held by most people who are driven by the profit motive. As a contrived example, let's look at the case of the "not too bright, but friendly" person. In this post automation landscape, this indivudal would be completely unemployable. They aren't very bright, and all work that they are able to do is better performed by robots and software algorithms. Quite litterally, it is not in the interests of any employer, anywhere, to ever employ them, period. This person is not retarded or anything, they just aren't the brightest, and wont be winning any scholastic or academic achievement awards any time soon. In this paradigm, they are consigned to either horrible poverty and death from systemic institutional neglect-- or, living on the dole, to the chagrin of the profit motivated elite. (See for instance, Mitt Romney's rather famous quips about supporting wellfare recipients.) There isn't anything physically wrong with them, they just arent inclined to have the few remaining skills left that are in demand, and so, are simply not employable--- As the current verbiage goes, they aren't "Qualified Applicants". They will NEVER be employed, even if they want to be.

However, unlike our friend Mr Romney, I do not consider this person to be a drain on society. With money, this individual is capable of doing things in the community that improves the human condition intrinsically-- Such as helping to combat the spread of infectious diseases by being a volunteer relief aid, or providing counselling services. (Even the power elite need counseling when their mental health suffers a decline.) This person is valuable, and needs the opportunities to thrive to properly demonstrate that value. The value they represent cannot be distilled into a simple financial metric.

No person, rich or poor-- Clever or thick, is without intrinsic value. The value they represent simply cannot be easily quantified, measured, and exploited. Without opportunities to thrive, people languish, and potential is wasted.

The current tradjectory of mankind is not toward a post-scacity utopia, where financial power is what is eliminated-- It is toward a sick form of neo-feudalism, where humans simply arent worth anything to the power elite, because they have robots and AIs for everything they could possibly want, and they have the resources to make it happen.