> Flip that around, secure encryption is an edge case compared to the majority, like your examples, that just want to message family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yes that’<\/em>s correct! But it’s also a *general good* as infrastructure, because [end to end encryption]<\/em> de-risks all communication from hacking\/exfiltration. It’s a bit like “make all water served through the domestic water supply, drinkable” \u2014 not strictly necessary in so many ways, and in others perhaps wasteful, but it solves so many problems that it’s generally desirable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Like privacy, it’s an enabler.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, it would be more hassle than economically beneficial to most families to say:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “We don’t need ALL of our water to be drinkable, so let’s run duplicate pipework and lay-in a non-potable supply.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2026on the off-chance that they have significant purpose for grey water.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So: the argument that “MOST PEOPLE DON’T NEED END TO END ENCRYPTION, MOST OF THE TIME” \u2013 is factually true, but also missing the point. The point is: when it *is* needed, which tends to be at surprise times, it’s already there and you don’t need to think about it.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Originally tweeted by Alec Muffett (@AlecMuffett<\/a>) on 2023\/04\/24<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Seriously: why would you build and run parallel messenger systems \u2014 one end-to-end encrypted, the other not \u2014 and then force people to make active choices on a message-by-message, or conversation-by-conversation basis, whether to use the secure channel or not?<\/p>\n\n\n\nFootnote<\/h2>\n\n\n\n