3 ms·
Why wouldn't you want to? As long as we're talking about a hypothetical replacement, it's fair to assume that doing so would come with no usability disadvantag
by mappu 11y ago
Why wouldn't you want to?
As long as we're talking about a hypothetical replacement, it's fair to assume that doing so would come with no usability disadvantages.
- anigbrowl 11y agoA few reasons..overhead, screwups if my key got compromised and I switched to another one, follwoed by problems decrypting older mail, not wanting to muck around with keys. While I'm very much in favor of anyone having the ability to easily encrypt if they see fit, I'm not sure how much value it really delivers for most people.
- Lorento 11y agoI think people are talking about encrypting while it's in transit, not in local storage. So you would want to not encrypt email for the same reasons you'd want to not encrypt wifi - ie none.
- e12e 11y agoWe already have server-to-server and client-server encryption via ssl/tls. We just have to turn off plaintext. If gmail/outlook/yahoo and most universities started tagging all mail received over plain smtp as insecure and dumped it in a "folder-of-shame, turning off plaintext might become a realistic option soon. But it solves very few problems. For that sender-sender encryption is needed. See also: http://hypertekst.net/misc/anon-remail/ http://hypertekst.net/misc/anon-remail/
- anigbrowl 11y agoMaybe - OTOH I figure a lot of people would like a low-friction way to encrypt so that if they were investigated by police or something their whole inbox wouldn't be open to anyone for the cost of getting a subpoena. Anyway, I do think it'd be good to engineer for encryption rather than trying to bolt it on afterwards as we do now. Sorry if my whimsical question was a derailment.