Such an off beat example, I don’t really understand what you’re getting at. We can still have robust TLS without having e2e encryption that prevents the media servers for scanning for illegal material.
Is that sarcasm? Logging into sites w/ usernames/passwords is literally a thing people do many times a day. That's the opposite of off-beat.
>We can still have robust TLS without having e2e encryption that prevents the media servers for scanning for illegal material.
End to end encryption is primarily about transport encryption. Scanning for content on media servers strongly suggests you're talking about encryption at rest - a very different application than transport encryption.
So this is where the miscommunication is. I didn’t know people were attacking TLS, that seems absurd to me. When I hear e2e, I interpret it as no one except the communicating parties can see the data. Facebook messenger DOES use TLS but it does not have e2e encryption.
Glancing at the Wikipedia page, your definition is the original one but in the last 6 years it’s evolved to the meaning I was using.
Is that sarcasm? Logging into sites w/ usernames/passwords is literally a thing people do many times a day. That's the opposite of off-beat.
>We can still have robust TLS without having e2e encryption that prevents the media servers for scanning for illegal material.
End to end encryption is primarily about transport encryption. Scanning for content on media servers strongly suggests you're talking about encryption at rest - a very different application than transport encryption.
Source: Day job.