NPR : E-Mail Encryption Rare in Everyday Use

* Ian G <iangsystemics.com> wrote:

> >So, why not always sign messages to a list that
permits
> >signatures?
> 
> It's hard to see the benefit, and it is easy to see
the potential
> cost.  In a litiguous world, we are (slightly) better
off not using
> messages that are going to haunt us in years to come. 
As a
> principle, I'd never advise anyone to sign any message
unless they
> could state what that meant.

Well, I for one value the spreading of cryptographic means
higher
than what might happen due to some misguided lawyer. with
all the
lost privacy due to so-called protection laws from all the
"evildoers" this has only strengthened my
resolve. after all, the
lawyers are still there even if one doesn't use
cryptographic means.

In my world there's just too much lobbyism involved not to
take
action in the vital field of privacy. Most people using
electronic
communications either believe that some occasional
eavesdropping is
ok (for they have nothing to hide; an arguement solely given
by the
state in some 1984 manner), or they don't grasp the extent
of
eavesdropping possibilities, or they just don't bother. not
bothering
is just equally bad as giving in to the state because if one
remains
passive, it is not likely that one will change one's
perception
easily switching to actively propagate one's ideals
(because of a
certain receptiveness to state arguements). and nowadays
it's hard
enough to change things even if one is actively involved.


> It could well be that this is a difference in view
across the
> Atlantic.  It seems that many (continental) Europeans
do not
> perceive a threat to themselves from things they write;
whereas the
> English-centric world is more "NDA"
obsessed.

I guess you mean Non-Disclosure Agreement by NDA. All those
acronyms;
it's about time the AAAAA takes action.

I haven't really perceived it the way you describe, but I
don't work
in an environment where such things could matter at all.
I'm in the
scientific community (chemistry), and there limits of talk
(if you
get the meaning) are described pretty well, and this only
affects
some areas of competition.

Given that some individual or even organisation keeps track
of its
employees' writings in/on public media, I barely see the
benefits
apart from some cases where it comes to leaking info which
is already
prohibited by some kind of Non-Disclosure Agreement. those
exist here
too, but with all the transparency about it, one really has
to be
utterly stupid to mess things up.

From what you write I get the impression that even the
slightest hint
about even the slightest clue may cause one harm. In my
opinion this
fuels fear, just like telling a teenager not to ever fall in
love
because he'll only get hurt anyway. we have misguided
lawyers here
too, far too many of them in fact, for about over 20 years,
and they
need to get an income. all that increased sueing stuff can
be traced
back to the growing numbers of lawyers hitting the open
market. not
that it offers a solution but there's still the bottom of
the ocean
or the moon, and mars may be an issue soon...


> >Quite frankly, I wouldn't have thought this topic
would emerge the
> >way it has on a cryptography mailinglist. Maybe
it's about time to
> >publish my article "Why Cryptography Is
Important In Modern Life"
> >after all (don't hold your breath; with me being
pretty busy it's
> >not due until after eastern).
> 
> Cryptography is a tool, not a religion, notwithstanding
the desires
> of many to deify it.  It is the application that
delivers benefits,
> and properly thought out apps generally use as little
crypto as
> they can get away with.  Top-down applications thinking
says "use
> the tool that does the job" whereas bottom-up,
toolbox thinking
> says "use this tool because it's so cool!"

I guess you got me wrong, and I'm not sure I get your
top-down,
bottom-up analogies. Anyway, I'm not propagating means of
cryptography because of a religious hype or something. to
clarify
this, me and my friends are not amused by officials having
the legal
means to listen in on email communications, phone
conversations, etc.
both without prior suspicion and some kind of notification
of the
person(s) being listened in to, let alone legal backup (it
was
rendered redundant anyway). because of the
terrorist-threat-hype such
processes are now accelerated to fit only the state's
benefits, yet
they sold as a citizen's benefit altogether. we have a
saying here (i
hope it carries over, i'm not a native english speaker):
working at
such a hectic pace replaces an intellectual calm.

From what I wrote above I guess it can be boiled down to
this. Means
of cryptography are valued because of the possibility to
protect
one's privacy that the state obviously has deemed
unnecessary, for
good citizens surely don't have something to hide. simply
put, since
we all don't walk the street naked, the state always wins.
such a
state is out of balance, and checks are most likely still in
place
where they possibly can't influence a larger picture.

someone smart said (and for me it really boils down to it):
if
cryptography is outlawed, only the outlawed will have
privacy.

having just recently "argued" with some elected
politicians over
intellectual property rights legislation, i've come to
favour the
swiss system over the parliamentary democracy here in
Germany;
politicans there seem to be way more down-to-earth and
citizen
oriented. instead we sadly seem to have in place some
underground
italian-way system...

-- 
left blank, right bald