Any security advise without consideration of your threat model is less than

As others have said, if you send me an encrypted email, and I'm not
prepared to deal with it, your message won't be recieved (your great aunt
Tilly isn't going to be able to read your encrypted emails without a bunch
of support)

In a general sense, the more we encrypt communication,  the better we hide
our source IP address, the safer we are, because if you only encrypt
dangerous communications, it's a clear flag of what messages are dangerous.
If they're drops in a sea of noise, it's harder to identify the important

There's another side of the coin though. You want to be careful doing
mundane stuff over the same channel you would do dangerous things.

An example - I use a VPN for whenever I torrent stuff I don't want to point
at my home. My browser talked to Facebook enough to trigger their
suspicious activity bot, making me change my password. So the IP I was
using to do secret stuff could theoretically be tied to an IP I was using
at the same time for mundane stuff. If my personal safety was a risk over
what I was doing, I'd be worried.

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, 07:05 Andrei POPESCU <> wrote:

> On Ma, 03 dec 19, 20:42:30, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
> > Good evening All
> >
> >
> > Just wondering if this is ALL good advice?
> >
> > Should I use it for ALL my mail, or just sensitive stuff, like lobbying
> > politicians.
> Most appear to be quite sensible, but I'm not using Thunderbird.
> Do note that encryption can work only if the other side supports it as
> well and you have their public key.
> I believe opportunistic signing and/or encrypting of e-mails should be
> the default in all e-mail clients.
> Kind regards,
> Andrei
> --

Reply via email to