3 ms·
I was thinking about encryption the other day. It struck me that whenever the topic came on HN we tended to see encryption as 100% or nothing. I however think
by vezycash 11y ago
I was thinking about encryption the other day. It struck me that whenever the topic came on HN we tended to see encryption as 100% or nothing.
I however think we should instead focus on creating good enough encrypted communication for email, chat... for two reasons.
1. It'll make things a little bit more expensive for the "watchers."
2. It will create noise. I.e. right now, if one person is using encrypted communication, he automatically becomes a target. With everyone using some level of encryption...
3. It'll serve as an intro to security. The same app that provides base level encryption can give TIPS on how to become even more secure. Think Windows "Tip of the day."
There's no perfect security. An insecure world-wide, easy-to-setup encrypted communication is better than nothing. Because, it'll at least make people more security/privacy conscious.
- wyager 11y agoWhy stop at making dragnet surveillance "a little bit more expensive"? It's not much more effort to make dragnet surveillance impossible and directed surveillance extremely expensive.
- kardos 11y ago> I however think we should instead focus on creating good enough encrypted communication for email, chat... for two reasons. What exactly do you propose? We already have large swaths of insecure encryption, for example opportunistic TLS [1], and the "export" crypto leftover from the 1990s. Designing some sort of mediocre encryption system that's both "good enough" to defend against typical criminals and simultaneously only "a little bit more expensive" for the well funded nation states seems like a poor use of expertise. Also it will have a shelf life: attacks only get better. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunistic_encryption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunistic_encryption