On 7/17/19 1:11 PM, Chris Laprise wrote:
> On 7/17/19 5:40 AM, ronpunz wrote:
>> Reading this article,
>> https://latacora.micro.blog/2019/07/16/the-pgp-problem.html, it's clear
>> the authors have little to no confidence in the security or capabilities
>> of PGP encryption.
>>
>> Is this
I agree with everything that Chris said. A few more thoughts:
First, I think the article is probably right that PGP is not the right
solution for most problems for most users, mainly because of inertia
against integrating subkeys into your workflow. But qubes-gpg-split makes
many features of
On 7/17/19 11:11 AM, Chris Laprise wrote:
> On 7/17/19 5:40 AM, ronpunz wrote:
>> Reading this article,
>> https://latacora.micro.blog/2019/07/16/the-pgp-problem.html, it's clear
>> the authors have little to no confidence in the security or capabilities
>> of PGP encryption.
>>
>> Is this
Thanks for your comprehensive reply.
I think you're right, Signal isn't the be all and end all that some
people think it is. Here's a comprehensive pro-PGP piece
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/12/signal-does-not-replace-pgp/
On 7/17/19 11:11 AM, Chris Laprise wrote:
> On
On 7/17/19 5:40 AM, ronpunz wrote:
Reading this article,
https://latacora.micro.blog/2019/07/16/the-pgp-problem.html, it's clear
the authors have little to no confidence in the security or capabilities
of PGP encryption.
Is this article a scare mongering propaganda exercise or do they have
Reading this article,
https://latacora.micro.blog/2019/07/16/the-pgp-problem.html, it's clear
the authors have little to no confidence in the security or capabilities
of PGP encryption.
Is this article a scare mongering propaganda exercise or do they have
valid concerns about why we should not be
