Hacker News Reader

Encryption by default is always scary, especially when it's very, very strong. If you forget the key, your data is gone forever. I don't think most people in the world need that level of security; those who do already know who they are. Everyone else may be willing to accept the risk that someone unauthorised may gain access, if it means reducing the risk of losing access themsleves.

(I have some very sad stories on this topic.)

View on HN

What's the point? If the encryption is weak enough to be broken by the average owner it's weak enough to be broken by anyone.

I think this is primarily a UX issue, encryption should be strong but users should be "forced" to create backups of their keys, with options to store the full key in a safe place themselves, or to distribute parts of their key to trusted people using Shamir's secret sharing.

In other words don't weaken encryption, allow users to weaken their key storage after informing them about the trade-offs, if they so desire.

Users should be the ones in charge of their computers, not the OS vendor. They should not be "forced" to do anything. Sane, secure defaults are fine, but ultimately, the user should decide.

The important bit that you left out is "with how much effort ?"

Both too weak and too strong shouldn't be the default.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com