4 ms·

"Perhaps you think your E-mail is legitimate enough that encryption is unwarranted. If you really are a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide, then why don't

by ferdo 13y ago

"Perhaps you think your E-mail is legitimate enough that encryption is unwarranted. If you really are a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide, then why don't you always send your paper mail on postcards? Why not submit to drug testing on demand? Why require a warrant for police searches of your house? Are you trying to hide something? You must be a subversive or a drug dealer if you hide your mail inside envelopes. Or maybe a paranoid nut. Do law-abiding citizens have any need to encrypt their E-mail? What if everyone believed that law-abiding citizens should use postcards for their mail? If some brave soul tried to assert his privacy by using an envelope for his mail, it would draw suspicion. Perhaps the authorities would open his mail to see what he's hiding. Fortunately, we don't live in that kind of world, because everyone protects most of their mail with envelopes. So no one draws suspicion by asserting their privacy with an envelope. There's safety in numbers. Analogously, it would be nice if everyone routinely used encryption for all their E-mail, innocent or not, so that no one drew suspicion by asserting their E-mail privacy with encryption. Think of it as a form of solidarity." Phil Zimmerman, 1994 http://www.pgpi.org/doc/whypgp/en/ http://www.pgpi.org/doc/whypgp/en/

mpyne 13y ago
You know what's beautiful about the mail example? Who delivers those letters? In the U.S., and many other countries, it's the government. You're literally handing your letters to the government and asking them to deliver them to the intended recipient without peeking. In short, you are trusting them to do the right thing, because they certainly could look inside the envelope if the really wanted to. Legal safeguards are your only defense against the government here, but we the people generally consider it a solid safeguard. But if it were to even be suggested to send email using government-provided networks (even encrypted email) you'd be laughed right out of any hacker con you attend. It's a pretty surreal difference IMHO.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  Maybe if it were possible to be notified when the contents of files are opened/read, and some how change the appearance (or state of them) to some extent that people know that something has been tampered with, like with enveloped mail and custom seals people used to send mail during the colonial america/pre-revolutionary times because mail was being opened and read…
  - mpyne 13y ago
    You could take those countermeasures even now if that's something in your threat model. But for the vast, vast majority of people it's apparently not something they worry about. They indeed simply trust the government to obey the law.
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      I know one can take those countermeasures now ;) Luckily, the vast majority of people aren't really needed to bring about change because most people do nothing because their blind trust doesn't require them to… Only just a relatively few methodically dedicated people who have the ability to see beyond and work through their current circumstances and help forge the future they want to see, are all that are needed.
- jjh42 13y ago
  One difference is the degree of effort and expensive required to record mailed letters in bulk. If I was a person of intense interest to the government I definitely would not trust the mail system. But as a nobody, I imagine its pretty unlikely anyone is looking at my mail. With email, the resources required to record all email is comparatively trivial and this makes it much more feasible that even us nobodies are having our privacy invaded.

by ferdo 13y ago

mpyne 13y ago

You know what's beautiful about the mail example? Who delivers those letters? In the U.S., and many other countries, it's the government. You're literally handing your letters to the government and asking them to deliver them to the intended recipient without peeking. In short, you are trusting them to do the right thing, because they certainly could look inside the envelope if the really wanted to. Legal safeguards are your only defense against the government here, but we the people generally consider it a solid safeguard. But if it were to even be suggested to send email using government-provided networks (even encrypted email) you'd be laughed right out of any hacker con you attend. It's a pretty surreal difference IMHO.

cinquemb 13y ago
Maybe if it were possible to be notified when the contents of files are opened/read, and some how change the appearance (or state of them) to some extent that people know that something has been tampered with, like with enveloped mail and custom seals people used to send mail during the colonial america/pre-revolutionary times because mail was being opened and read…
- mpyne 13y ago
  You could take those countermeasures even now if that's something in your threat model. But for the vast, vast majority of people it's apparently not something they worry about. They indeed simply trust the government to obey the law.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    I know one can take those countermeasures now ;) Luckily, the vast majority of people aren't really needed to bring about change because most people do nothing because their blind trust doesn't require them to… Only just a relatively few methodically dedicated people who have the ability to see beyond and work through their current circumstances and help forge the future they want to see, are all that are needed.
jjh42 13y ago
One difference is the degree of effort and expensive required to record mailed letters in bulk. If I was a person of intense interest to the government I definitely would not trust the mail system. But as a nobody, I imagine its pretty unlikely anyone is looking at my mail. With email, the resources required to record all email is comparatively trivial and this makes it much more feasible that even us nobodies are having our privacy invaded.