It's a valuable reference article by a lunimary I am not qualified to disagree with, and it captures the time well.
When you look at who the antagonists to privacy are, they are political institutional actors. Rogaway even suggests they are in-effect predators on those they surveil.
Framed that way, I'd wonder whether cryptography engineering for privacy is a substitute activity, and its neglect is just an enabler for what has historically been the meekness and even cowardice that facilitates the domination of human populations. As though there is a generation of young (mostly men) who are saying, "yes, the institutions are compromised, there are spies on every platform and brownshirts in the streets, but if we can just get this blockchain product to market, we can escape them." History indicates that's not how it works, and I think the time for cryptographic solutions has passed.
Comments
It's a valuable reference article by a lunimary I am not qualified to disagree with, and it captures the time well.
When you look at who the antagonists to privacy are, they are political institutional actors. Rogaway even suggests they are in-effect predators on those they surveil. Framed that way, I'd wonder whether cryptography engineering for privacy is a substitute activity, and its neglect is just an enabler for what has historically been the meekness and even cowardice that facilitates the domination of human populations. As though there is a generation of young (mostly men) who are saying, "yes, the institutions are compromised, there are spies on every platform and brownshirts in the streets, but if we can just get this blockchain product to market, we can escape them." History indicates that's not how it works, and I think the time for cryptographic solutions has passed.