On Dec 1, 2010, at 8:18 42PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second >> trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now, >> or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes less tolerated, let alone >> supported, we may want to attempt to ensure it in our deployments. > > Wouldn't this simply change the focus of who can attack from the USG (which, > as far as I am aware, has not attacked the root) to some other government (or > worse, the UN)? Given a handle, folks are going to want to grab it when they > feel a need to control, regardless of who the folks are. It'd be nice to > remove the handle, but that appears to be a very hard problem... > I think that the Pirate Bay announcement was triggered by http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131678432 plus the COICA bill (http://www.eff.org/coica) -- though it, at least, appears to be dead for this session and who knows what the new Congress will do.
That said, I think the problem is primarily political, not technical. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb