2 ms·

I think it's about the difference between being able to expect a certain level of service or not; regardless of what the actual average is. And about the worst

I think it's about the difference between being able to expect a certain level of service or not; regardless of what the actual average is. And about the worst-case scenario and the perception for me of a point-to-point architecture. If I email something, then if it's "largely" encrypted, that is no consolation if that doesn't hold. I'd feel it was on me for doing it. On the other hand, if I fax something, and someone who shouldn't sees it, it's likely an insider at the destination location, and in any case, it's not my fault as long as faxing is regarded as reasonably secure.

bawolff 7y ago
I still dont think that makes sense. Every attack you can do against email you can do against fax. MITM the connection - even ignoring opportunistic encryption, almost certainly easier to physically witetap some random office than it is to wiretap the internet connection between google's data center and microsoft's data center (picked as two random big email providers) Insider at destination: your email account has a password and audit logs. Fax machines sit in the middle of a room. Usually anyone can just walk over Insider at source: most people have their own computer/email account set up. Going to some sketchy shop with a public fax machine that any malicious party could have secretly modified is much worse.