Incredible to think about that we got it right the first time (with email) and still had to spend the last 20 years complaining about centralized social networks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Since email is no less secure than snail mail

I would disagree with that. The attack surface on snail mail is much, much smaller (only whoever can get in physical contact with my mail) and any attack scales incredibly badly. It is also often hard to read snail mail without making it obvious that it has been tampered with (i.e. opening the envelope).

Meanwhile the attack surface of email is huge (basically the entire internet), any attack can scale wildly and it is impossible to tell if anyone else read an email.

By and large, physical stuff is much more secure than digital stuff, just less convenient.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

Yeah I get that but it does not make snail mail any more secure. It should be done right but when they are not going to do it right anyway and snail mail is an option. I would prefer to be allowed to take the option taht is at least usable. As it stands now in the US its just legal to not provide you clients with statements because that is what it effectively does.