The ''reality'' is that proponents of key escrow solution (and the "collect it all") approach have consistently made the assumption that intelligence agencies are able to protect the keys and data. The impenetrability is so deeply a part of their narrative that it's not even discussed. The cost/benefit analyses are very different if you assume that adversaries are likely to get access to any information our government collects.
I'm not interested in your reasons for opposing key escrow, if only because I think key escrow is stupid also, as does literally every expert I have ever talked to in my career.
Our opinions about key escrow have nothing to do with whether Russia hacked an NSA staging server, or another leaker inside NSA is behind the leak.
I don't really know how to respond to this. Paraphrasing this conversation so far:
tptacek: "The NSA is impenetrable" is not and was not the prevailing narrative, to say the least."
me: I disagree; it's part of the narrative that pro-surveillance people use to support things like "collect it all" and key escrow
tptacek: I don't understand what our beliefs about key escrow have to do with the narrative
me: explains again what you're missing about how this relates to the pro-key-escrow (and more generally pro-mass-surveillance) narrative
tptacek: everybody agrees key escrow is stupid, and our opinions about key escrow have nothing to do with things that you weren't discussing like where the leak came from
me: hmm ...
It's almost like you're trying not to hear what I'm saying.
OK, one more try.
If all the experts you talk to are against key escrow, why do pro-mass-surveillance folks keep proposing it? They see the tradeoffs differently. And why's that? One reason is that the stories they tell about why it's a net positive have the underlying assumption that there's not a significant risk of they keys being compromised. Conversely and when opponents of key escrow tell stories about the potential downsides if the keys are compromised, proponents downplay this as a risk.
> It's almost like you're trying not to hear what I'm saying.
Perhaps because what you're saying is/sounds off-topic? Basically it amounts to "some (pro-mass-surveillance) folks propose X because Y". Even if that's true, so what? To repeat the GP, this has nothing to do with whether Russia hacked an NSA staging server, or another leaker inside NSA is behind the leak.
Sigh. Try reading the thread again, starting with 'tptacek's comment that ""The NSA is impenetrable" is not and was not the prevailing narrative, to say the least."
