11 ms·

First, you know full well that security is a matter of degree, and not binary thing. It's tradeoff against convenience that can be made more easily when there's

by leot 13y ago

First, you know full well that security is a matter of degree, and not binary thing. It's tradeoff against convenience that can be made more easily when there's a trusted third party. We're already willing to trust webmail providers with all our email -- how can it possibly be worse than the status quo if suddenly everyone can use PGP transparently, too?

kelnos 13y ago
After this past week, how can you possibly suggest that webmail providers like GMail are trusted third parties?
- leot 13y ago
  Well, they are trusted 3rd parties, regardless of whether or not you happen to trust them. Anyone who has a private Gmail account necessarily trusts Gmail. In any case, the argument isn't that webmail is perfect for implementing PGP. The argument is that 1) no one uses PGP now because no on else uses PGP 2) if webmail providers deployed PGP, everyone would be using PGP 3) some use of PGP is better than no use of PGP It really seems like some people are cutting off their PGP noses to spite their PGP faces. I remember when the assumption with vegetarianism was that you were either a vegetarian (and never ate meat) or you were a meat eater (and ate meat regularly). So people kept eating meat regularly because they "couldn't give up meat", thus believing in a false choice. If vegetarians had been pragmatic, they'd have realized that would have been much easier, and would save more animals, if you convinced 95% of people to give up meat 95% of the time. Dear privacy advocates: stop wanting everything yesterday, because it's keeping you from getting something tomorrow. Most change takes place gradually. Webmail providers deploying PGP will instantly create millions of PGP users, which will at the very least serve a valuable educational and awareness purpose. These users will gradually become more concerned with the implementation details, triggering a gradual increase in overall privacy and security.

by leot 13y ago

kelnos 13y ago

After this past week, how can you possibly suggest that webmail providers like GMail are trusted third parties?

leot 13y ago
Well, they are trusted 3rd parties, regardless of whether or not you happen to trust them. Anyone who has a private Gmail account necessarily trusts Gmail. In any case, the argument isn't that webmail is perfect for implementing PGP. The argument is that 1) no one uses PGP now because no on else uses PGP 2) if webmail providers deployed PGP, everyone would be using PGP 3) some use of PGP is better than no use of PGP It really seems like some people are cutting off their PGP noses to spite their PGP faces. I remember when the assumption with vegetarianism was that you were either a vegetarian (and never ate meat) or you were a meat eater (and ate meat regularly). So people kept eating meat regularly because they "couldn't give up meat", thus believing in a false choice. If vegetarians had been pragmatic, they'd have realized that would have been much easier, and would save more animals, if you convinced 95% of people to give up meat 95% of the time. Dear privacy advocates: stop wanting everything yesterday, because it's keeping you from getting something tomorrow. Most change takes place gradually. Webmail providers deploying PGP will instantly create millions of PGP users, which will at the very least serve a valuable educational and awareness purpose. These users will gradually become more concerned with the implementation details, triggering a gradual increase in overall privacy and security.