> How does "their identity is known" translate into an attack?
They can be coerced into actions based on threats to themselves or relatives.
They can be coerced into actions based on threats to themselves or relatives.
You don't seem to realize how easy it is to discredit someone that the general public doesn't recognize.
The cryptographers are one false planting of child porn away from no influential majority of people believing a word they say. You won't defend them, because you'll question the authenticity of the child porn claims and you'll have no evidence to the contrary.
Overnight these kinds of people can be taken down and made into nothing.
You obviously don't entertain the idea that those could be legitimate. What makes you think you'll entertain the idea if it were to happen to a lead cryptographer that you've never met before in your life?
Not when proposed by apparently paranoid HN users, I don't.
> What makes you think you'll entertain the idea if it were to happen to a lead cryptographer that you've never met before in your life?
I happen to be involved with cryptography. I'm very familiar with three of the people on the Zcash team, one of whom I call "friend".
Instead of worrying about stopping every logically possible attack, I find it more productive to focus on stopping the 99.9999% of plausible attacks. If the government manages to pull off something theoretically possible but unbelievably improbable, they simply deserve to win that round.
Maybe this is where your potential bias stems from. I mean, what's the point of name dropping here if it's not stemming from a bit of ego, maybe strong enough ego to believe you're out of reach for a three letter agency? You know three of them, great, but you don't know all of them and you may not know the most major contributor and it's possible there exists a key member that has an already shady past.
The hypothetical in question isn't even intended for you. It's intended for the general public. Most of whom would gladly eat up whatever story they are sold.
When you frame the conversation that way, it makes more sense.
I very much agree with you that it's not worth focusing on, but you were acting like it was never a possibility simply because the people being attacked would be well educated.
>Not when proposed by apparently paranoid HN users, I don't.
From the CIA selling drugs to arm the Hmong in the Vietnam war to the NSA in ATT's room 641A, there are enough examples to know that it's possible.