3 ms·

gpg/pgp do work for those who can use it properly, which is a tiny minority. Can your parents or non-tech savvy friends use gpg/pgp? Probably not. And as Assan

gpg/pgp do work for those who can use it properly, which is a tiny minority. Can your parents or non-tech savvy friends use gpg/pgp? Probably not. And as Assange said, if you are e.g. a journalist in the government watchlist, it could be worse (more dangerous) than not using gpg/pgp. Text messages using OTR seems like a better way. For widespread crypto usage, telling people to ignore pgp/gpg and use texts with OTR seems more reasonable than keeping projects like GnuPG alive. If I were running a company like Facebook who's interested in spying on people, I might even fund projects like GnuPG so that unrealistic geeks keep thinking this is a viable solution.

e12e 12y ago
I'm not convinced most people that can't use gpg "properly" are able to use OTR "properly". As for facebook, as long as they keep the XMPP access open and supported[1], at least they do support OTR. Unlike eg: google. I don't really understand this "gpg is impossibly hard"-stance. Yes, security is hard. Why recommend OTR? Don't get me wrong, I love OTR -- but verifying OTR keys, and transporting identities across devices (eg: when getting a new phone) is pretty difficult too. Are you saying wrong use of OTR is better than wrong use of gpg, because most people that use OTR use it in a way that allow for MITM anyway? [1] https://www.facebook.com/sitetour/chat.php https://www.facebook.com/sitetour/chat.php
- redthrow 12y ago
  I don't think you need to be convinced. When 99% of people look at the choice between (a) Thunderbird+Enigmail and (b) TextSecure, they know which one is easier to use (your Mom probably knows more than you do in this regard), not to mention OTR has properties that PGP/GPG lacks such as PFS.
  - e12e 12y ago
    Textsecure is nice, but it's not really an alternative to encrypted email. It doesn't support off-line use, it's inconvenient for sharing large documents. But most importantly, the point you seem to ignore, it's not secure if you don't verify keys. I'd say most people don't verify keys with OTR -- hence they're not using it in a manner that's actually secure. I do agree that it's a lot better than people using Snapchat.

e12e 12y ago

I'm not convinced most people that can't use gpg "properly" are able to use OTR "properly". As for facebook, as long as they keep the XMPP access open and supported[1], at least they do support OTR. Unlike eg: google. I don't really understand this "gpg is impossibly hard"-stance. Yes, security is hard. Why recommend OTR? Don't get me wrong, I love OTR -- but verifying OTR keys, and transporting identities across devices (eg: when getting a new phone) is pretty difficult too. Are you saying wrong use of OTR is better than wrong use of gpg, because most people that use OTR use it in a way that allow for MITM anyway? [1] https://www.facebook.com/sitetour/chat.php https://www.facebook.com/sitetour/chat.php

redthrow 12y ago
I don't think you need to be convinced. When 99% of people look at the choice between (a) Thunderbird+Enigmail and (b) TextSecure, they know which one is easier to use (your Mom probably knows more than you do in this regard), not to mention OTR has properties that PGP/GPG lacks such as PFS.
- e12e 12y ago
  Textsecure is nice, but it's not really an alternative to encrypted email. It doesn't support off-line use, it's inconvenient for sharing large documents. But most importantly, the point you seem to ignore, it's not secure if you don't verify keys. I'd say most people don't verify keys with OTR -- hence they're not using it in a manner that's actually secure. I do agree that it's a lot better than people using Snapchat.