• papertowels@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    You’re talking about encryption and signal because you’re worried about folks whose network you’re connected to being able to invade your privacy, right?

    I’d say it’s a pretty reasonable suggestion to say we start with those guys. If you don’t worry about those guys, who do have access to traffic info, then why bother with encryption?

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      You’re talking about encryption and signal because you’re worried about folks whose network you’re connected to being able to invade your privacy, right?

      LOL no? I’d never blow the whistle on my employer from my desk. Even if I did, I would connect to a different network.

      I recognize other people are not as conscious as I am of that vulnerability but you asked about me, specifically.

      If you don’t worry about those guys, who do have access to traffic info, then why bother with encryption?

      Any number of other people. Primarily the government.

      • papertowels@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        Any number of other people. Primarily the government.

        Right, so if the header isn’t encrypted, it’d be trivial for them to see who you’re sending to, which is why that’s important.

        You never answered my question - do you think the network connection itself is encrypted? Or just the content of the messages?