8 ms·

"she responded that there's nothing interesting in her mailbox and she doubts anyone is interested in doing so." What is wrong with this response?

• 16s 16y ago
  Email is the primary medium for lost password recovery. If someone else gets access to her email account, they have access to most of her other accounts as well. If she understood this, she would show more concern for two factor authentication.
  • Lost_BiomedE 16y ago
    Sorry, a bit off-topic, but is using https enough or is two factor preferable. I use two factor in LastPass but only https log on in gmail.
    • jonburs 16y ago
      It depends on the attack vector you're trying to protect against. If you're on a machine you control (e.g., a personal laptop) and can vouch for its security -- that is, you're sure there's no kind of spyware installed -- https should be sufficient protection when connecting on public networks (especially open wireless connections). Two-factor auth, on the other hand, protects you when you can't guarantee the security of the machine you're using -- someone able to capture the logon sequence won't be able to replay it at a later point in time. Note that two-factor auth without https isn't clearly of huge benefit, as an attacker with access to your network may be able to capture the session token (e.g., through firesheep or similar tools).
      • Lost_BiomedE 16y ago
        Thank You, that clears it up for me. I don't think I am able to upvote you, or haven't figured it out. Maybe someone else will, for your kindness and time.
• jfm3 16y ago
  I wear pants. I have nothing to hide, particularly, but I don't want anyone but my wife and my doctor looking under them. Certainly not Eric Schmidt. The problem is that consequences of transparent pants are easy to understand, but the consequences of unencrypted email are less so.
  • rmrm 16y ago
    It seems like privacy law is the proper domain to control these things for the public. Your pants, while not transparent, do not pose much of a roadblock from a determined party looking inside them. That it's illegal for anyone to do so without your consent is the actual deterrent -- not any intrinsic property of your pants.
    • jfm3 16y ago
      I concur, but the value of such a law will not be apparent to anyone who doesn't feel the same way about transparent pants and unencrypted email. I should also add that I think it's evil to take advantage of the user ignorance of the issue to improve ad targeting.
• daniel1980fl 16y ago
  nothing if she lacks a basic knowledge of how this information is _very_ interested to spammers, insurance companies, car sellers, cell phone carriers, everyone that has something to sell to her and treat her as a "lead".