|
|
|
|
|
|
by mithaler
2308 days ago
|
|
|
If what you really need is security, then I don't see how (1) and (2) can be overriding concerns. If I were in a situation where my life depended on my messages being confidential, my choice of medium wouldn't turn on the convenience of long-form messages or social conventions around reply time. To put it another way: if I'm in a situation where being able to type an easy-to-read long-form message is more important than it being end-to-end encrypted, I'd just use Gmail. I don't see why Signal needs to satisfy both use cases; at worst it's kind of ergonomically awkward, but it isn't making false promises of security, which is worse than useless. |
|
|
Obviously, if what I really need is security, these aren't overriding concerns! But I think part of the point is that you should be using these things even when you don't need security -- otherwise when you do use it, it's potentially suspicious. Secure messaging needs to be ordinary, not something special you only do when you need security. Signal accomplishes that well for text messaging! Nothing, apparently, really accomplishes that well for email while also being seriously secure.
Edit: Or to put it another way -- tptacek talks about people "LARPing" by using attempts-at-secure-messaging when they have no need for security. But, such "LARPing" is actually important, as it creates cover for those who do need it! Just, y'know, we still need the actually-secure part.