What i don't get is why we should care about this (care as in, advocate for). MITM is a great argument for distrusting the everyone in the middle, not trying to increase trust in the middle man - no?
This just feels like an attempt to control who is the middleman spying on data, not actually securing Americans data. Which makes sense, coming from the government and whatnot - but i'm just trying to make sense of if there's an actual reason i should like this "Clean Network" (which is to say, my comment is an honest question, not an attack on the proposal).
Perhaps i'm just biased because of my (pet) passion for distributed systems. I don't trust any MITM, so i think i struggle to understand the concern for _who_ is in the middle.
I'd be far more interested in this type of pitch if it came with heavy support for encryption, distribution, etc.
Look at the "great cannon" attack for an example of why securing the middle is important. Secure software obviously shouldn't trust the middle, but the middle being compromised means that insecure software can do orders of magnitude more damage.
Moreover the middle can just shut down. Especially for things like embassies it's not a good idea to give the adversaries an easy off switch.
I agree that "encrypt all the things" would be a very nice addition.
This just feels like an attempt to control who is the middleman spying on data, not actually securing Americans data. Which makes sense, coming from the government and whatnot - but i'm just trying to make sense of if there's an actual reason i should like this "Clean Network" (which is to say, my comment is an honest question, not an attack on the proposal).
Perhaps i'm just biased because of my (pet) passion for distributed systems. I don't trust any MITM, so i think i struggle to understand the concern for _who_ is in the middle.
I'd be far more interested in this type of pitch if it came with heavy support for encryption, distribution, etc.