Dnia wtorek, 1 grudnia 2015 00:19:22 dan@geer.org pisze:

In dealing with high level decision makers, the best strategy is always to provide three options and have the decision maker choose amongst them. Taking the American electorate as that high level decision maker, I would find it refreshing were Brennan to present said electorate with the choice between [1] content analysis (hence crypto side doors and the exposure of content), [2] traffic analysis (hence data retention at a level heretofore unseen and the cataloged exposure of real social networks), and [3] a willing resolve to tolerate the occasional terrorist success. It is a choice amongst losses.

Aww, but you assume that these are three mutually exclusive options. That's quaint, seeing how right now we have [1] *and* [2] *and still* we have to tolerate occasional terrorist success (that being [3]). So the way I look at this is: unless it can be *proven* to me that [1] or [2] will significantly lower the occurence rate of [3], they should not even be considered valid options. Once somebody does prove that [1] or [2] actually do significantly lower the occurence late of [3], then and *only* then can we have informed debate about them, taking into account tangible and intangible costs of implementing them. In which case we still have to remember that [3] will always be there, from time to time. -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147