News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"

[Faustine]

Greg wrote:

>Further, they've been open (since late 1999/early 
>2000, at least) about wanting to encourage and facilitate law enforcement 
>and intelligence community use of their system, so that those groups come 
>to see ZKS/Freedom as a system which has good and bad aspects, instead of 
>just bad ones .. in hopes that a more nuanced (or conflicted) view of 
>Freedom's utility would slow down or stop regulatory activity aimed at ZKS.

Sure. But to what extent can you collaborate without a)approaching full-
blown collusion or b) getting taken for a ride in spite of your best 
efforts? Either way, it's hard to justify trading in on the old "staunch 
and true defender of privacy" cachet. That is, unless you overestimate your 
own product, underestimate the skill of those who would break it, and 
thereby delude yourself into feeling on top of the world.  Hint: nobody at 
the NSA or in any way concerned with "national security" has the slightest 
incentive to get you to feel otherwise. Depressing. 


>Maybe in the long run, it's right to view any objections as being little
>more than irrelevant, moralistic hand-waving. But I don't find the "they're
>going to compromise it anyway so why not make a buck when we can" line of
>reasoning particularly satisfying.
>Well, no, it's not especially elegant or poetic, but it's simple 
>economics, which are at the heart of both successful business and 
>successful cryptography. If ZKS refused to sell to NSA, what would have 
>changed, except for their ability to crow "We told NSA to fuck off!" ..?

Yep. Empty symbolic gestures are always expensive. You made a lot of 
interesting and thoughtful points about DGU too, thanks.

~Faustine.