6 ms·
The main reason I think, is because its hard. Either you use a 3rd party service to encrypt, its easy and also extremely dumb (since its not end to end encrypt
by zobzu 14y ago
The main reason I think, is because its hard.
Either you use a 3rd party service to encrypt, its easy and also extremely dumb (since its not end to end encryption).
Either you use PGP or SMIME and guess what: it's too hard. Their design is fine. I especially like GnuPG (PGP), but the UI, even in CLI, is terrible, terrible!
Most people don't even understand that a GnuPG keychain generally contains 2 private keys, not one (one for signing, one for encryption!) or the concept of master signing key and subkeys.
These concepts are relatively simple, but their use is hard. Terribly hard.
- Egregore 14y agoMy idea was that public key cryptography should be done under the hood, so I created a easy to use ResoMail, but people still were not interested (or I was a bad marketer).
- zobzu 14y agoIt uses it's own protocol/port/programs it seems. Too many people rely on email right now. Else, we could just use XMPP. Thus the solution should work over email, and with our current email clients. S/MIME/GnuPG/PGP do, but their implementation is far from friendly.
- Egregore 14y agoThe part of the solution is to switch to secure domain names, each domain name comes with bundled key pair (like SSL) this is why it's easier to work securely with public key encryption under the hood - the signing of the e-mail public key is done under the hood, the user doesn't have to do it manually.
- bwood 14y agoHere's a relevant paper called Why Johnny Can't Encrypt[1], which does an excellent job of defining understanding and usability problems with encryption. It's certainly dated, but I find that its main points are still very true today. [1] http://www.gaudior.net/alma/johnny.pdf http://www.gaudior.net/alma/johnny.pdf