Re:Keeping secrecy the exception, not the rule
by zrm on Saturday April 16, 2016 @02:40AM
(#11509572)
That isn't what it's for. You can assume the government (really any government) has control over at least one CA.
What Let's Encrypt does against state-level actors is let people easily use HTTPS instead of HTTP without subjecting their users to self-signed certificate warnings.
A government could still MITM the connection but that requires an active attack rather than passive surveillance. And active attacks are subject to detection. So it protects against undetectable mass surveillance.
What Let's Encrypt does against state-level actors is let people easily use HTTPS instead of HTTP without subjecting their users to self-signed certificate warnings.
A government could still MITM the connection but that requires an active attack rather than passive surveillance. And active attacks are subject to detection. So it protects against undetectable mass surveillance.