Well I haven’t see the arguement for why Quantum resistent encryption would somehow be weaker to traditional cryptographic techniques. I understand that early “quantum encryption” alogrithms were flawed, and it’ll probably be a long time before we get the DES of Quantum Encryption. But all that means is that we don’t have vetted “strong” quantum encryption techniques yet, and should stick with traditional encryption since quantum encryption isn’t worth it yet. If Quantum encryption becomes worthwhile, we shouldn’t have “traditional encryption”, because it will be obsolete.

If the first cylinder lock was easily bypassed compared to my old reliable wafer lock, then why should I use the cylinder lock at all? Now that cylinder locks are better then wafer locks why should I use a tumbler lock at all? There is no added security by using a wafer lock.

You can always encrypt the payload twice if you want. But really what are you arguing? That every time you encrypt something, you should encrypt it serially with all known encryption algorithms “just in case?” Hell why not do it again just to make sure?

A key component of encryption is efficiency. Most cryptographic processes are going to be occurring billions of times across billions of transactions and involving billions of systems. It’s worthwhile for robust encryption algorithms to be efficient and avoid unnecessary calculations unless those calculations demonstrate some advantage. For example PBKDF2, where the multiple rounds of identical encryption convey a demonstrable increase in time to decrypt via brute-force mechanisms. If the standard is 4096 which it was in 2005, you coming along and saying, but why isn’t it 4097? The CIA is using >4096, therefore that means that 4096 is insecure! Isn’t really understanding why 4096 was chosen to begin with. Additionally no one is stopping you from using one million iterations with key1 and then doing another million rounds with key2.

Ok government here are the messages i’m legally required to provide you.

U2FsdGVkX1/FEry+/NeyfmzA3icvpchwSo5qySzajv87f9PwhJyog+zS1Qv+j8bzYXG5sCLZMbFqUJn9Cp7RkVY79wuUArUaxE59LtdO0LKT+0+d220DxFVioHe8Vlaq

Alright you’ve convinced me. The ability to store video’s within the app (for a non-technical user) is probably worth having an app. Of course a website could and should have the ability for a user to upload a video independent of an app, but I acknowledge that there are indeed some additional benefits that can only be realized with an app.

Of course I’ve never liked the wall-garden app store paradigm to begin with, and obviously if that wasn’t the only source of apps, then my entire point is moot. If any user could download the app from the digital ocean hosted iceblock website, and install it before going on scouting missions, then the app would be much more valuable, and the service more robust.

Yes. Hence my initial claim that apps are worthless, and shouldn’t be used if you can use a website instead. So the whole idea of Apple or Android being able to remove the “iceblock” app, shows that the app was ill-conceived to begin with. Or possibly it was even a honey-pot since apps do have much greater access to the parent device then a website.

Most apps are a packaged browser that makes proprietary API calls over https. However there is nothing proprietary or valuable in the app itself, except possibly some key material for authentication of the app with the back-end.

Then depending on the user making various requests a middle-ware program will interact with the backend database and retrieve the results back to the user. The database is the valuable part and other then the specific query the user is making, nothing else is can be retrieved by the user. Normally the middle ware isn’t even downloadable either.

A lot of websites have server side programs taht are never downloaded by the client. So there is a pretty big difference there. Basically if you want a subversive anti-government “app” you really want a website, not an app.

Apps are just browsers that can only visit one website. Who cares about them?

I wasn’t referring to the privacy relay, though if you want to use it that’s fine too. More of just easy ways to reduce your digital footprint.

It’s the most private and secure phone OS you can get today. You have to have minimal trust in Apple that they won’t change the terms, but that is miles better then using google who will explicitly use your data for anything they want.

It comes down to the hostile actor you are trying to defend against. If you are Jason Bourne and you have been burned by your agency so multiple nation-states are looking for you, then you have to go fully off-grid and live a quiet life without ever communicating with anyone in your prior life again. It doesn’t matter if you are using Signal, or SMS, or even a dial-up BBS. If you are communicating with people that are also under heavy surveillance, you cannot hide.

If you want to reduce your “digital footprint,” then not using google/facebook/other social media is the most worthwhile thing you can possibly do. Your phone doesn’t matter. Use iOS, never install any of the social apps, use Safari in incognito mode, and you’ll never be tracekd across websites again.