Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 27/09/2018 12.15, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E. R.
wrote:

People with which I needed to use encryption were unable to set any
encryption method up. A lawyer, for instance. I would have to go to
his
office and teach him.

use an encrypted email service. there's nothing to set up. all they
need is a browser or an app on their phone.

That would require a binding contract and spend money, which they did
not want to do.

no it wouldn't. it only needs a mutual agreement to use an encrypted
medium. there are free options as well as paid ones. choose whichever
one works best for all parties involved.

Not for a lawyer, it wouldn't. He would be directly liable if the email
gets intercepted or somehow compromised.

it's actually ideal for a lawyer, since it's basically impossible to
intercept and crack end-to-end encrypted email unless the passcode is
something trivially guessed.

We know that. He may or may not, but that would be irrelevant. :-)

He needs to pay someone that says "yes, this is safe". With a contract.

not if he uses a free service that states that, which i said exist.

Not valid enough for the lawyer. He needs someone to sue.

not for every item he uses.

Something as crucial as mail? Certainly. Ask them...

I don't know about you, but I found this part quite funny, not to say
hilarious:

He needs to pay someone that says "yes, this is safe". With a contract.

not if he uses a free service that states that, which i said exist.

A *lawyer*, trusting a *free* service saying "yes, this is safe"!?

nospam at his best!