From: The Doctor <drwho@virtadpt.net>
   >I suppose what I'm bitching about (and I've probably just faceplanted
   >by stepping into that particular pothole - it's my turn, I guess) is
   that
   >there seems to be no part of the threat model where risk is
   >acceptible.  I mean, going all the way back to hand-wired
   >electromechanical processors just to be able to bootstrap back to
   >silicon and losing 20-30 years of technical advancement?
   >Somewhere, we went way off course.  There is a saying: "Perfect is the
   >enemy of working."  I think that's where we as a group have lost our
   way.
   >The threats are known.  The risks are known.  Let's act.
   I agree with that.  I think it's better that we get 50% of the
   population to use encrypted phones, where the encryption isn't truly
   known to be perfect, than to get 1% of the population to use perfect
   encryption.  Verifying the last little bit of doubt is going to cost a
   rather large amount of money.  Raising the demand for crypto phones to
   50% represents a huge market, which will be satisfied, and the profits
   for that market will pay for the next generation of closer-to-perfect
   phones.
                 Jim Bell