[maicro]

I agree that concern is valid (and a good reason to encrypt everything), I just think the original example doesn't really say that clearly (or at least clearly enough).

Then again, maybe I'm just being pedantic.

Thanks for the clarification - have a good one.

[mjevans]

It's implicit that the communicating parties desire the information to be shared among themselves, otherwise why would they talk about it at all?

[maicro]

While I agree, I still feel like the original example wasn't explicit about the threat being external to the conversation. But again, that's likely me being overly pedantic/overly concrete in my thinking.

That being said, there are situations where you would want to "revoke" information you shared willingly and intentionally with someone (think in the case of a messy breakup or divorce, where that information could be socially or legally troublesome if presented in a certain way) - encryption is still weak to a "plaintext recording" attack in that case.

Anyway, again, thank you all for the informative and civil discussions X) Have a good one.