12:36 < viccuad> Am I the only one that thinks that Moxie is trying to destroy 
                 crypto from the inside? 
                 http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/gpg-and-me/
12:40 < K_F> viccuad: seems so
12:41 < zeroXten> "destroy crypto from the inside" seems a bit harsh
12:41 < K_F> zeroXten: sabotour then
12:42 < K_F> http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/097.pdf
12:47 < K_F> "We are concerned with mechanisms that an attacker can embed in 
             instances of
12:47 < K_F> a cryptosystem to subvert some of its intended security 
             properties. We call such a mechanism the weakness,
12:47 < K_F> and the party that is responsible for embedding it the saboteur.
12:47 < K_F> ... "in this case he
12:47 < K_F> appeared to have introduced the weakness by accident and was not 
             working with any of the attackers that
12:47 < K_F> eventually were able to exploit the vulnerability, i.e., our use 
             of the term saboteur is meant to describe a
12:47 < K_F> role, not an intent.
12:48 < K_F> zeroXten: security is difficult, anyone telling you it is easy or 
             that it can be solved using technical means without cooperation
of 
             social efforts is a sabotour of crypto and security as a whole
12:51 < K_F> people needs to be educated, much like humanity had to learn
about 
             hygiene and its correlation to disease a hundred-odd year ago
12:52 < K_F> as more of the worlds communication evolve, so needs the people 
             using it
12:52 < K_F> but it can't be solved technically (only)
12:52 < K_F> what we need are better ways to educate people, and get it into 
             school earlier, like the algorithm classes in kindergarden in 
             britain
12:52 < K_F> teching kids algos through games
12:52 < K_F> (i.e physical games)
12:53 < K_F> sadly the intellectual potential is declining rather than 
             increasing over the past 50-70 years though