The problem is "motivational"

[Mark H. Wood]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 05:39:28AM +0000, M.R. wrote:
> On the other hand, I keep wondering: why are we (and we obviously
> are, witness this paper and the initiative behind it) so motivated
> to spread the gospel of e-mail encryption among those that completely
> lack the motivation for it?

o  Philosophical:  I just think that communication channels should be
   encrypted unless someone demonstrates a good reason not to.
   Perhaps it comes under the heading of not tempting others to sin. :-)

o  Protective coloration:  if email is normally encrypted, this further
   weakens the already-stupid argument that "if you want this much
   privacy then you must be up to no good."

o  Weariness of "duh moments":  some people throw their secrets around
   like confetti and then get all bent out of shape when this comes
   back to bite them.  Saying, "well, you could easily have protected
   yourself with X if you cared" is always unrewarding and always hard
   to eschew.  I'd rather not be tempted.

o  Taking unenthusiasm personally:  we obviously think this stuff is
   interesting and useful, and it can feel kind of insulting that
   others don't.

o  The telephone quandary:  if *I* want to communicate securely with
   you, then I need for *you* to have a compatible secure means of
   communication.  (If I'm the only person with a telephone, whom can
   I call?)

o  Cassandra complex:  the vague feeling that Something Bad Will
   Happen And I Didn't Warn Them.

That's all I can think of right now.

-- 
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer   mwood at IUPUI.Edu
Asking whether markets are efficient is like asking whether people are smart.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20111020/6ed2b368/attachment.pgp>