Talk:Secure communication

Misnamed article?

The name of this article seems to reflect a common misconception about the term "security". The article Communication security has the same problem. Security is a broader concept than maintaining secrecy of communication, and in particular the objectives of communication security include secrecy, authenticity, integrity and non-repudiation. For example, communication could still be described as secure if it is effectively impossible to modify a message in transit without detection, even if the information content is in the clear. I would suggest that since the article only addresses the one component of communication security, namely secrecy, it should be renamed accordingly (unless, of course, it is broadened to cover the field). — Quondum^☏ 10:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but also for additional and different reasons.

I suppose that in the 21st century we might easily slip into the subject and ignore everything but telecommunications and more modern methods involving computer networks etc.

The article is named in such a way that implies it covers a whole subject, but it ignores non-electronic forms of communication; perhaps even something as rudimentary as two people speaking face-to-face.

Of course, there is also "security" in terms of reliability of whatever equipment is used to communicate. That is no less important. PårWöet (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Article Quality

This article seems like it is written from a first-person perspective. It also speaks opinion as fact, for example: it is probably safe to say — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifanator (talk • contribs) 21:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)