I was recently intrigued to learn that only half of the respondents to a survey said that they used disk encryption. Android, iOS, macOS, and Windows have been increasingly using encryption by default. On the other hand, while most Linux installers I’ve encountered include the option to encrypt, it is not selected by default.
Whether it’s a test bench, beater laptop, NAS, or daily driver, I encrypt for peace of mind. Whatever I end up doing on my machines, I can be pretty confident my data won’t end up in the wrong hands if the drive is stolen or lost and can be erased by simply overwriting the LUKS header. Recovering from an unbootable state or copying files out from an encrypted boot drive only takes a couple more commands compared to an unencrypted setup.
But that’s just me and I’m curious to hear what other reasons to encrypt or not to encrypt are out there.
Phones make the encryption invisible to the user.
That’s not the case on Linux unless you’re willing to put in a bit of work to set up TPM unlocking yourself or use one of the few distros that use TPM by default, like Aeon.
And even then Aeon’s not perfect. Sooner or later the TPM will fail and you’ll have to enter your long backup password and reenroll the TPM.
Yep. But typing in a password at boot is no big deal and you do then get some of the benefits of encryption. The problem, as you seem to be hinting, is the lockscreen issue. A screenlocked OS without the hardware encryption module is not actually locked down whereas Android, for instance, is. Is that right? I’ve wanted to ask how Android does this - basically, it loses the key and then regenerates it based on biometrics or whatever, each time you unlock, is that it?