2 added 25 characters in body
source | link

When sending government-classified information to another site, protocol dictates that it has to be sent via snail mail (or courier -- no email), so the USA probably has some pretty compelling evidence that this is more 'secure'.

Granted, this depends on how trustworthy your country's postal system is.

One thing that I can think of is that as soon as you put any information on a system connected to the internet, you have no real guarantee that it only goes where you want it to go. Maybe on that machine you're sending the email from is a virus that is waiting for BigSecretFile.txt to be uploaded and then secretly sends it to a waiting attacker. With snail mail, if your recipient never gets the package, or your seal is broken on it upon arrival, you at least have reasonable certainty that your information has been compromised.

However, if you simply must ensure that nobody other than your intended recipient has your plaintext secrets, probably the safest thing to do is generate and then encrypt the data (with a sufficient key that only your recipient knows) on a machine that has never been connected to a network/is convincingly secure. After that, I don't think it's any more 'secure' to snail mail it or to email it from another machine as your data is encrypted either way, but snail mail still gives you a better chance of knowing if it's been intercepted.

When sending government-classified information to another site, protocol dictates that it has to be sent via snail mail, so the USA probably has some pretty compelling evidence that this is more 'secure'.

Granted, this depends on how trustworthy your country's postal system is.

One thing that I can think of is that as soon as you put any information on a system connected to the internet, you have no real guarantee that it only goes where you want it to go. Maybe on that machine you're sending the email from is a virus that is waiting for BigSecretFile.txt to be uploaded and then secretly sends it to a waiting attacker. With snail mail, if your recipient never gets the package, or your seal is broken on it upon arrival, you at least have reasonable certainty that your information has been compromised.

However, if you simply must ensure that nobody other than your intended recipient has your plaintext secrets, probably the safest thing to do is generate and then encrypt the data (with a sufficient key that only your recipient knows) on a machine that has never been connected to a network/is convincingly secure. After that, I don't think it's any more 'secure' to snail mail it or to email it from another machine as your data is encrypted either way, but snail mail still gives you a better chance of knowing if it's been intercepted.

When sending government-classified information to another site, protocol dictates that it has to be sent via snail mail (or courier -- no email), so the USA probably has some pretty compelling evidence that this is more 'secure'.

Granted, this depends on how trustworthy your country's postal system is.

One thing that I can think of is that as soon as you put any information on a system connected to the internet, you have no real guarantee that it only goes where you want it to go. Maybe on that machine you're sending the email from is a virus that is waiting for BigSecretFile.txt to be uploaded and then secretly sends it to a waiting attacker. With snail mail, if your recipient never gets the package, or your seal is broken on it upon arrival, you at least have reasonable certainty that your information has been compromised.

However, if you simply must ensure that nobody other than your intended recipient has your plaintext secrets, probably the safest thing to do is generate and then encrypt the data (with a sufficient key that only your recipient knows) on a machine that has never been connected to a network/is convincingly secure. After that, I don't think it's any more 'secure' to snail mail it or to email it from another machine as your data is encrypted either way, but snail mail still gives you a better chance of knowing if it's been intercepted.

1
source | link

When sending government-classified information to another site, protocol dictates that it has to be sent via snail mail, so the USA probably has some pretty compelling evidence that this is more 'secure'.

Granted, this depends on how trustworthy your country's postal system is.

One thing that I can think of is that as soon as you put any information on a system connected to the internet, you have no real guarantee that it only goes where you want it to go. Maybe on that machine you're sending the email from is a virus that is waiting for BigSecretFile.txt to be uploaded and then secretly sends it to a waiting attacker. With snail mail, if your recipient never gets the package, or your seal is broken on it upon arrival, you at least have reasonable certainty that your information has been compromised.

However, if you simply must ensure that nobody other than your intended recipient has your plaintext secrets, probably the safest thing to do is generate and then encrypt the data (with a sufficient key that only your recipient knows) on a machine that has never been connected to a network/is convincingly secure. After that, I don't think it's any more 'secure' to snail mail it or to email it from another machine as your data is encrypted either way, but snail mail still gives you a better chance of knowing if it's been intercepted.