5 ms·

>When I receive a GPG encrypted email from a stranger, though, I immediately get the feeling that I don’t want to read it. >the email was written by someone wh

>When I receive a GPG encrypted email from a stranger, though, I immediately get the feeling that I don’t want to read it. >the email was written by someone who would voluntarily use GPG. >There just seems to be something particular about people who try GPG and conclude that it’s a realistic path to introducing private communication in their lives for casual correspondence with strangers. Is it just me or is the implication here that anybody who uses PGP is usually a kook of some kind?

danudey 12y ago
I think the implication is that GPG is so pathologically complex, awkward, cumbersome, and broken that getting GPG-encrypted e-mail means it's from someone who's so paranoid/obsessive that they encrypt all e-mail, even to strangers (when possible?) even when the tool is so awful as to discourage the average individual.
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  >someone who's so paranoid/obsessive that they encrypt all e-mail, even to strangers That's pretty much what I meant, clearly somebody didn't like me bringing it up. I wonder why. I have to use PGP every day for my job, I don't feel like a paranoid/obsessive, so I resent the implication a little bit. It's a clunky piece of software, but it hasn't caused me nearly as much suffering as Lotus Notes.
  - fensipens 12y ago
    Don't bother. While I have much sympathy for the average user and see several problems with PGP, the gen-pop here is creating way too much buzz around a tool that is working reasonably well. And with respect to the PGP-user / character link.. this is just beyond stupidity.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
vog 12y ago
Indeed, that argument is utterly stupid. First of all, if he receives an encrypted email from a stranger, this is because he has a GPG key, too. So that stranger had every reason to assume that he's also a "GPG tinfoil hat". Sarcasm aside, using GPG for minor stuff is not about paranoia, but about protecting minorities! This includes discriminated minorities as well as whistleblowers, investigative journalists, and so on. I for myself may not need that level of protection, but others do. Maybe even the stranger I'm writing to. The more encrypted communication we have, the less minorities spike out who really need that protection. So encrypting everything is not "I fear", but a political statement. And that political statement is simply "I want encryption to become the norm rather than the exception, to protect minorities".

danudey 12y ago

I think the implication is that GPG is so pathologically complex, awkward, cumbersome, and broken that getting GPG-encrypted e-mail means it's from someone who's so paranoid/obsessive that they encrypt all e-mail, even to strangers (when possible?) even when the tool is so awful as to discourage the average individual.

A_COMPUTER 12y ago
>someone who's so paranoid/obsessive that they encrypt all e-mail, even to strangers That's pretty much what I meant, clearly somebody didn't like me bringing it up. I wonder why. I have to use PGP every day for my job, I don't feel like a paranoid/obsessive, so I resent the implication a little bit. It's a clunky piece of software, but it hasn't caused me nearly as much suffering as Lotus Notes.
- fensipens 12y ago
  Don't bother. While I have much sympathy for the average user and see several problems with PGP, the gen-pop here is creating way too much buzz around a tool that is working reasonably well. And with respect to the PGP-user / character link.. this is just beyond stupidity.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

vog 12y ago

Indeed, that argument is utterly stupid. First of all, if he receives an encrypted email from a stranger, this is because he has a GPG key, too. So that stranger had every reason to assume that he's also a "GPG tinfoil hat". Sarcasm aside, using GPG for minor stuff is not about paranoia, but about protecting minorities! This includes discriminated minorities as well as whistleblowers, investigative journalists, and so on. I for myself may not need that level of protection, but others do. Maybe even the stranger I'm writing to. The more encrypted communication we have, the less minorities spike out who really need that protection. So encrypting everything is not "I fear", but a political statement. And that political statement is simply "I want encryption to become the norm rather than the exception, to protect minorities".