No. Encryption is often likened to storage in a secure safe. So things like credit card details should be stored securely, have appropriate procedures for who is allowed access to the information, only be taken out of storage (access the un-encrypted data) while being worked upon and never left on an unattended desk.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about what you said in your first post in this thread:
--------------------------------------------------------------------- I would expect all personal data to be encrypted beyond something basic like name/email address.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
That is certainly what *I* have been talking about since.
But you are right about the way I am using "sensitive personal data". I am using that in the sense I believe most people would understand, rather than the DPA definition.
It's not cheap and trivial, because if your software doesn't do it already, and oesn't have a configuration option to do it, you have to throw it away and buy and install new software which does, and re-train your staff to learn how to use it. That's hugely expensive.
It's only trivial if you've written your own software and can just slot in some scrambling and descrambling stuff. I could. But most small data users couldn't.
You can't easily obtain cash or goods from a credit card number unless you use it to manufacture a card, and then cash only if you know the PIN. You can't order stuff by mail order except to the card holder's address. So why are mere card details so valuable? I don't see it.
to have something encypted on the disk? what systems don't provide encrypted filesystems in use today? windows does, OS-X does, linux * does, of course that's pretty weak in that it's tied to log-on users, but it's a 5 minute activity that you never need to think of again.
To have it integrated within a single application certainly may depend on the application, but again it's cheap.
There are a lot of non goods ability to turn credit cards into money without a strip, there's lots of services that aren't physical goods.
Jim.
Really? The asterisk suggests there's a footnote to come, but you didn't add one. My linux does not, as far as I'm aware, have such an option.
No it's not cheap, because unless you have control over it, the originator has to build it in for you, and they won't unless they're happy to do so on a one-off basis (which will cost) or unless they can see a wider market (in which case it'll still take time).
The * acvtually meant a multitude of linux like things, are you sure EncFS doesn't run for you? I understood it did for just about anything. I would be amazed if there were any linux like things knocking about that didn't have an encrypted file-system.
Jim.
Never heard of it, but my friend google obliged. It appears it wouldn't be suitable, because it seems to rely on you unmounting the filesystem in order to perform the actual encryption. That's not much use if the data is required to be on line 24-7.
There are certainly others, including ones which work just like the mac/window solutions, I'm sure asking in the relevant group will sort you out.
Jim.
You don't understand. I'm not interested in being "sorted out", I don't have an encryption requirement, and if I did, I'd fill it my own way.
I'm merely claiming there is no trivial solution which non-experts can just slot into their systems. You are claiming the opposite, and I'm damned if I'm going to do the research for you to help you disprove my claim.
If we're talking non-experts, then we're not talking linux users, as we're not talking linux users, then Windows contains a trivial methods, you can't have it both ways, if they're using simple off the shelf packages on commercial O/S's then all you need to do is right click and select "encrypt" - do that to any data folder and it's done. It's trivial.
If you're not using off-the shelf consumer level stuff, then you certainly have the ability or the ability to specify it when purchasing, given the triviality of it, it won't impact the cost a lot.
Jim.
"Jim Ley" wrote
Not everyone uses the latest version of Windows.
How do you expect someone running, say, Windows 2000 to set up encryption?
"All linux users are experts"? Hahahaha.
that's not what I said at all...
Jim.
Oh yes it is. Not literally, but in terms of meaning.
What you said amounts to "if a person is not an expert, this implies he is not a linux user".
By the rules of basic logic, "A implies B" is equivalent to "(not B) implies (not A)".
In this case, you said the second half, where B is "person is expert" and A is "person is linux user". This is equivalent to the first half "anyone who is a linux user must be an expert".
So there!
Yes it is.
You said that all non experts are not linux users. Which means that all linux users are experts.
That was helpful. I was going to look at the irrelevant pages.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.