On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 11:47:41 -0500 "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jacob Peck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > While this point is rendered moot if they have pre-encryption access, I > > see no reason to blacklist the idea completely. > > > I'm an ignoramus concerning security and encryption. However, I assume > that web sites that offer such services are experts. If they despair, I > have no reason to doubt them. I think the problem for the websites / data services is that they're being required to allow certain access to their systems, to, no doubt, the data in its unencrypted form. Since that doesn't happen to individuals, when you use encryption on files which are only un-encrypted temporarily on local, personal, systems, you're only exposing the *encrypted* data to systems you don't control, if and when you send / store it through / on other systems. Whether that encryption protects you or not, I don't know, my limited understanding is that 4096 bit encryption would still be expensive to brute force, but the point is the pathways are different for files on private personal systems and non-private / non-personal systems. Cheers -Terry > Having said that, I do not wish to debate which plugins are appropriate. > If you want to do an encryption plugin, go for it. > > Edward > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
