5 ms·
> If someone gets into an email server, they only get the mailboxes on that server. By centralizing slack, they've made it the ultimate target worthy of people
by dsacco 9y ago
> If someone gets into an email server, they only get the mailboxes on that server.
By centralizing slack, they've made it the ultimate target worthy of people with 0-days.
So you’re opposed to Gmail and Outlook as well? Do you run your own mail server? Does your organization?
- UncleEntity 9y agoDon't see that as a valid argument, in the lead up to the elections they got a couple email dumps as opposed to the whole chat history of the political organization -- which I think would've been very bad, definitely very, very bad...
- dsacco 9y agoIt’s an argument attacking the probable inconsistency of the parent’s argument. More generally speaking, it’s an argument that reiterates my original point - security is a context-specific discipline, and it is fully legitimate for people and companies to decide they would rather have various features than maximal security. Security has diminishing returns of efficiency with respect to how much safety it adds at the cost of removing some usability. I stand by my point: in practice, end-to-end encryption is not desirable for many applications, and that’s completely fine. We have entire fields like application security precisely because it’s inappropriate and untenable to lean on maximal computational security for all of our confidentiality, authentication and authorization requirements.