Re: [OT] Posting styles (now PGP)
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 01:55:06PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 08/04/12 12:26, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > I suppose you mean encrypting, you can still read signed mail. The point
> > to note is that *if suddenly* two people start encrypting their mail,
> > that alone will set off alarm bells
>
> Yes - though it presupposes "someone" is monitoring that email. Which
Obviously. It *could* be done automatically. Who knows why, but that is
not worth speculating on really. Computer savvy jealous boy/girl friend,
etc.
> would make a compelling reason *to* encrypt email.
I said "... that *if suddenly* two people start encrypting ... "
> > and basic detective/"social
> > engineering" work would reveal more than you would like.
>
> About the contents of the encrypted mail? Please elaborate and/or file a
> bug report.
No, not the contents obviously. There is a lot of information in the
headers, date sent, o/s, MUA, IP address etc etc. So if you *suddenly* start
sending encrypted mail to a "person of interest" then you automatically
appear on the radar of the people who, for whatever reason, are
monitoring this "person of interest" and because they don't know whether
the contents of the post are "innocent" ... Hollywood? Perhaps, but who
knows. The point is, just because you send an encrypted mail or encrypt
your laptop doesn't mean you can relax.
Some people say that if you get a laptop with a finger identification
setup on it you are safer, I say, the opposite, I want to keep all my
fingers.
> > If you encrypt
> > your mail all the time (not sure who does)
>
> Lot's of people. It's a requirement in many areas of business.
Is it?
> > then the chances of anyone
> > wasting resources to "see what's up" is considerably lower.
> >
>
> I'm not sure that's a logical conclusion, but I'm not Bruce Schneier or
Why? Resources are a finite commodity.
--
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
Reply to: