|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Woof. 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. - -Tom 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. > > -Chris > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXK5VQAAoJEC5YjBv8XzOqnxIP+wcNAUOhFAYLJRX49rOSDMlu 7Yy8+qonePiL+NvIu2gi92iB4nxoQTxIrmywZgydaLGSW3xPdFad51IvGnVKqe5d TaCTlEwUvQxv0yY6gmHYKPtzp/+xyyfns7TmbtrHSTNpG4oQdkn5coWGTkG+t3kR /IiQarRe6HxwW8nCNdRFq7iTmsBk4DGFVJp3kEMqLRTZUClB1dg76Y0nh3KO+1/a w0jxMBGK354aQtZ5YDeDEHHgt8j+ij0FUkfe5Y8l1D+K6bcNDnotYx3wjgf873if xgoeC4239T1ypavlcGzTzqLNSD/dRRgvd2F7H28TnAYRTivcBY5oST0MXHGg/KuF dOiCkIA3c69c2K1wL+p4z4ihBiGTaEI46q2JsNTFNjB5tVa3liJfOzrqJQa5wYTJ wz3xXhqeypbIAayiHlo4a77nOF5lcYfVUDMmLNFOfLKDBa5+PumXTxf/+m5TFOqJ 8q6BNzcZJQEl+4n5nXgnRLdL2q1lRXOrYzmTEiq35YhF4UjI1QlwFcJlb9WZtOIE MxSn9SeyJAvuXOdUEjVabDEqSoBK1q+Px9vL4cQlTSDft96nTM2UjeDuviIyGBzK lTDLBXx1VSHX1eZoRyAg+kKDR/FCcpbFl2+yHt9BI4wPCuJ6eG7+cInOMfzQ5CFy w51pR7wEr8QVvs8vp4uL =OPzj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |