Interesting piece, worth a read. Even if the format is quite unusual. Interesting comments on HN, too.
The talk says that, in the 1990s, "cryptosystems were still classified as munitions and subject to strict export controls". The talk describes the "crypto wars" as "a series of legal battles, campaigns, and policy debates that played out in the US across the 1990s", resulting in "the liberalization of strong encryption in 1999", allowing people to "develop and use strong encryption without being subject to controls".
OK, that sounds familiar. Which parts are the "sins"?
Answer: the talk claims that "the legacy of the crypto wars was to trade privacy for encryption—and to usher in an age of mass corporate surveillance".
Wow. That sounds bad, and surprising, definitely something worth understanding better. If cryptographic export controls had instead remained in place after 1999, how would that have improved privacy and reduced corporate surveillance?
Answer: the talk claims that, without strong cryptography, "the metastatic growth of SSL-protected commerce and RSA-protected corporate databases would not have been possible".
[...]
  1. The future I hope you're troubled by mass surveillance. I hope you have the time and energy to do something about it. I know many of my readers are doing this already.
Doing something doesn't mean magically solving the whole problem all at once. It means picking a specific task where you can reasonably hope to make progress, and working on that.
For example, maybe you engage in the policy fight against surveillance mandates. Or maybe you expose the money flow behind those mandates. Or, as a programming example, maybe you work on tools for decentralization. There's much more to do.
I have seen mass surveillance. It is not pretty. Even in a "democratic" country like Taiwan.
reply
If there is mass surveillance, there will develop mass surveillance dodging schemes. Now it is as easy as a swipe of black on the face or two. Or, a lock of hair through the eyebrows. Wiseguys will develop the means to avoid it, I am confident.
reply
Why should we have to in the first place? Just imagine all the energy and money going into it to catch petty things. It would be a lot better to mine bitcoin with the money instead.
reply
Well, the government seems to think that your business is their business. Therefore, any money spent in spying on your business is well spent. It is those turds in DC doing this with the [DS]. :)
reply
Yes! Working on tools for decentralization, paying with cash and urging friends and family to reduce digital footprint.
reply
Strong cryptography often seems to come with unfortunate “backdoors”. The companies just don’t seem to be able to avoid it.
reply