-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Well, kudos to Google for embracing and implementing the importance of providing more user-friendly encryption tools.
But PGP will now be forever associated with the Google brand- I don't see how it can escape that- and I think that brand is synonymous with a door closing to the public, only Super Google People allowed. Non-free, Chrome only, users must download through the Chrome Web Store, and "relatively effortless.
However- if more people become interested in end-to-end encryption, hopefully this will be a great opportunity to share GPG and other opensource software.
PS - I really hope they don't use the typical "G" naming formula (Gmail, Gdrive, etc) and name it Gpgp... that would be nightmarishly confusing.
On 5/5/16 12:53 PM, Chris Ruvolo wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 10:45:42AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
>> Is this something that could/should be eventually useful, or a
>> fundamentally flawed concept?
> While anything that gets PGP used more would be good in theory, I have to
> worry about the huge attack surface that a browser presents. If anyone is
> already using gnupg, they shouldn't replace it with the e2e plugin.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----