3 ms·
It's substantially better than nothing, is it not? Do you disagree that it requires more effort on the part of a malicious actor when emails are sent from on os
by allovernow 7y ago
It's substantially better than nothing, is it not? Do you disagree that it requires more effort on the part of a malicious actor when emails are sent from on ostensibly encrypted email service?
Do your house doors not have locks because locks are easy to pick?
Further, wouldn't encrypted email, even in current implementation, be much more effective in keeping secrets if everyone used it? You can do much less with metadata than with email contents, and the fact that leaks of plaintext archives may happen eventually doesn't mean that all archives will be leaked.
The article has a valid point but shaming people by accusing them of larping is IMO irresponsible.
- tptacek 7y agoEncrypted email is not substantially better than nothing in the cases where security actually matters. If the metadata of your message can get you arrested, or if an accidental plaintext reply to a message can get your bank account zeroed out, then using a system that carries those risks is worse than nothing. When we talk about secure messaging, those are the use cases we must consider.
- sethev 7y agoIt’s worse than nothing. People who know their message isn’t secure can adjust what they say accordingly.