Post #1137832

2026-04-13 19:54 UTC

@huitema@social.secret-wg.org @paulehoffman@infosec.exchange @rsalz@ioc.exchange We require seatbelts in cars to reduce the number and severity of injuries in the event of a crash. The problem with allowing seatbelts to be skipped is something we explain to 6-year-olds. No, we don't allow cars to be sold with warnings in place of seatbelts. And, no, we don't allow the seatbelt rules to be corrupted by funding from the National Morgue Association.

Replies (2)

@pedromj@mastodon.social 2026-04-13 21:53

@djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to @huitema@social.secret-wg.org @paulehoffman@infosec.exchange @rsalz@ioc.exchange The problem discussed in this thread can be amended with a new prescriptive draft that states the potentially undesired outcomes and that specifies the means to avoid them.

Open ##1137831
@letoams@defcon.social 2026-04-13 21:19

@djb @huitema @paulehoffman @rsalz the analogy is of course ridiculously broken because everyone is building towards and expecting the future to be PQ only. A better comparison is a scenario where we mandate hybrid cars because perhaps EV technology will fail in the future, even though we know eventually everyone will drive a pure EV. Some people now prefer gas, some hybrid, some EV. We let people choose because non of the car variants are dangerous. You are trying to force hybrid cars on everyone because you think EV might break despite years of research of the worlds best experts.

Open ##1249768