Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

the entire point of encryption is that you don't trust the channel you communicate through, that's what it was invented for, communication across adversarial channels. Distrust is the only condition under which you need encryption.

In addition from a practical POV it's if anything the reverse is the case. Email encryption is larp security because plain text is the default, leaks metadata and its interfaces make it trivial for people to leak entire conversations. If there's one technology where you should just assume your messages are public, it's email before someone copy pastes or wrongly forwards your encrypted communication to fifty other people.

Private message encryption makes sense because it's now a default, information exchanged is usually personal, and the problem isn't just Meta but law enforcement extorting your data out of their hands, which encryption in the real world has prevented a few times now already.



It's a governance.

The executives don't want anyone else to be able to use the messages in a malicious way, so they decide to cut it at the sources of the messages i.e. e2e encryption.

This is like: corporate emails being deleted after 6 months. When an authority asks for emails from the last year, they can say they don't have it.

Now the authority can ask for the emails not to be deleted at all but then that will be a different battle the authority has to fight.

Corporate emails often don't involve pedos/terrorism, so there's much less push to retain corporate emails forever.


I just think that it makes a lot more sense for interoperable technologies like sms and email, where messages are transmitted between providers and isn’t as crucial for single provider technologies where you should trust the provider. It’s instagram for gods sake. It’s just a bunch of people shooting their shot. DMs aren’t even the point of the service.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: