encryption

Especially with respect to encryption, many companies and government services rely on poorly designed homebrew solutions.

The whole point of encryption is to keep unauthorized people from having access to your data.

Especially once you start talking about table lookups / etc (although that's more common with encryption algorithms than straight hash algorithms).

We had encryption in past, but unfortunatelly people are became scared when they relogin on other device and lost all messaging history.

For people that aren't interested in encryption I don't even go into that when telling them to use TextSecure.

Even in those programs that do use it for hashing or encryption or something you'll find the vast, vast bulk of arithmetic is not.

They would have to physically break into whatever location contained the keys, and then circumvent any encryption-in-rest that you had wrapping those private keys.

If they weren't so conflicted about encryption, the logical response would be to get serious about defensive measures and make sure they're more widely available.

As if the choice of which drive encryption software you use on your laptop should be your primary concern when securing yourself against an adversary.

Store your encryption keys in a TPM, smartcard, or Active Directory.

At that point you have no advantage over other encryption programs.

It works as long as someone can't break encryption method.

For most of the uses on your "Purposes" page, you don't need the deniability, only the encryption.

In the Washington Post there was a call for encryption with access for a "golden key".

The network relied on "control" messages to create/delete groups automatically (as opposed to manual subscription), which due to the lack of authentication/encryption in the protocol, were very easy to spoof.

The example there only supports an ECB-like mode of encryption - is this a documented "feature" of the system or is it just that we are only looking at a simple example?