Video on a Mozilla page isn't playing on Firefox. Just saying...
Painfully, it suggests "public vs private" hinges on encryption. The implication is that without encryption, your co-workers will see everything you do!
Public and private are distinct choices. Things can be private and unencrypted. Lack of encryption means lack of security in the event of a breach, it has nothing to do with choosing public vs private posts and web searches.
Works fine in my FF.
And for what it's worth, I think Apple should assist in revealing the contents of the phone if they can. I'm surprised people are defending Apple. My understanding is the request is about making the phone open to brute force attack, so it's not like encryption is under threat. It's poor password choice that's under threat. Apple does not need to compromise any other phone in doing this.
What you're talking about is encryption of data at rest, which is a specific subset of encryption. And even then, what makes you think the breached data won't be available to your coworkers? The stuff on Ashley Madison certainly did.
If you want to sell encryption, please keep it real. A hand written letter to your mother in the post is private unless intentionally and illegally intercepted. By the logic of the video, the letter is passed along and read by your neighbors before reaching its true destination.
Uh, if you're on wifi or a mobile connection, depending on the configuration, it pretty much is exactly like shouting a private message across a room
I could press a glass against the wall and listen to people having a private conversation. Does that make their conversation public "like shouting it across the room"? No. Of course it doesn't.
Get your analogies straight.
I could use my zoom lens to spy over your shoulder as you type your message into your super-encrypted phone. I will now publish the video on youtube, your private message now public. Serves you right for "shouting your message across the room".
We live in a world where eavesdropping on a private conversation is possible because people aren't talking in a cone of silence every time they want privacy. The unlawful intent to listen in needs to be there, and then some sort of action is required to hear the conversation, such as holding a glass to a wall.
Exactly the same with digital messages. Sure, they can be listened to, but not by just anyone accidentally, as the video seems to suggest. Unlawful intent is required, and specific actions with specific software to listen in.
I'm all for encryption, but let's get something straight: unencrypted messages are not dripping down the walls for anyone to read who passes by.