On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Terry Brown <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > 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. > Thanks for these remarks. They seem reasonable to me. Still, I have no belief in any kind of privacy these days. I think it would be wise to act on the assumption that big brother is watching everything, including our keystrokes. EKR -- 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.
