Slashdot Mirror
'Let's Encrypt' Project Strives To Make Encryption Simple
jones_supa writes: As part of an effort to make encryption a standard component of every application, the Linux Foundation has launched the Let's Encrypt project (announcement) and stated its intention to provide access to a free certificate management service. Jim Zemlin, executive director for the Linux Foundation, says the goal for the project is nothing less than universal adoption of encryption to disrupt a multi-billion dollar hacker economy. While there may never be such a thing as perfect security, Zemlin says it's just too easy to steal data that is not encrypted. In its current form, encryption is difficult to implement and a lot of cost and overhead is associated with managing encryption keys. Zemlin claims the Let's Encrypt project will reduce the effort it takes to encrypt data in an application down to two simple commands. The project is being hosted by the Linux Foundation, but the actual project is being managed by the Internet Security Research Group. This work is sponsored by Akamai, Cisco, EFF, Mozilla, IdenTrust, and Automattic, which all are Linux Foundation patrons. Visit Let's Encrypt official website to get involved.
Making it simple will go a long way to avoiding PEBCAK problems. Simpler processes give less opportunity for human error.
This. A thousand times over. You may not like it, I sure as hell don't like it, but we live in the Surveillance Age now and will probably be for the rest of our lives. While it may appear noble and idealistic to want to oppose it, it's also foolish if not downright suicidal. One can't fight the State, especially not when the vast majority of the populace supports it. It's best to choose one's battle and to know when you're beaten. We're beaten. Privacy is dead. It's not coming back. Move on.
Cowards like you have never changed the world. Sad, really. Not that I think I'm going to, or anything, but for fuck's sake man stop being a pussy! If we're so beaten, and privacy's so dead, then what the fuck have we to lose by figthing for what's right?
I'd rather be suicidal and on the right side of history than get to live a meek, shallow little existence cowering in my hole waiting to die, afraid to say the wrong thing or think the wrong ideas. Sure, someone may eventually kill me or persecute me because I believe in freedom and liberty and privacy, but they won't be taking away my dignity. I've done nothing wrong, and I have the right to think and say what I want (as do you). I, for one, will be exercising those rights until I'm six feet under.
Being cowards and letting everyone roll over on us is how we got in this mess in the first place. It's not too late to take ownership of your historical defeatism and try to affect change.
we live in the Surveillance Age now and will probably be for the rest of our lives.
Probably true - But I'll still use encryption for my private files and communications. I'll still refrain from screaming what I had for breakfast into the ether. I'll still make up random information when registering for any service that doesn't need real info to perform its core function. I'll still "fuzz" personal details when relevant to discussions on sites such as Slashdot. I'll still bait telemarketers even though they probably know more about me than I do. And, I'll still make Officer Twitchy get a warrant to search my phone, even if it means I get shot in the back trying to peacefully walk away.
Accepting the reality of something doesn't mean you should just give up - We all unavoidably die, why don't we all just commit suicide now and save ourselves the hassle of wasting all that time working and sleeping and exercising-so-we-can-live-longer and such? Sometimes, "accepting" something means "fight harder anyway".
That's already happening. DRM, for example, has always been partially for commercial reasons (preventing privacy), and largely for anti-competitive reasons (preventing interoperability and forcing people to repurchase the same content repeatedly).
Encryption is being used for almost every purpose except the good ones. We could use encryption to protect privacy and prevent identity theft, but I guess we can't do that because it might prevent the NSA from snooping on your dick pics.
Yes but if everybody has access to simple to use encryption that stigma goes away, when encrypted traffic is the norm rather than the exception then Its use is not a red flag. Mass adoption is in itself protection.
"on the right side of history" This phrase has always confused me. Unless you are a prophet or time traveler, how do you know you are on the "right side" of history until a significant enough time has passed? And what does "right side" even mean? Is this about winners and losers? Was Stalin on the right side of history since he was a winner (in a manner of speaking) while Hitler was on the wrong side of history since he was a loser? Or is this some kind of moral/ethical rightness? But how do we know what will be moral/ethical at a point in the future that our time is considered to be history? 100 years ago I'm pretty sure the average person wouldn't have considered someone who supported gay rights to be on the right side of history. Again, until enough time has passed, how can you know that you are/were on the right side of history? It sounds like wishful thinking to me.