1996-05-03 - Has Tim turned anti-PGP?

Header Data

From: Steve <root@bitbucket.edmweb.com>
To: “Timothy C. May” <tcmay@got.net>
Message Hash: e30c8074412b998a0e6d061bf9fe9bec2733101346b1b5176ac2f19c69790097
Message ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960503031848.470A-100000@bitbucket.edmweb.com>
Reply To: <adaea4ac18021004fc68@[205.199.118.202]>
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-03 16:17:33 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 00:17:33 +0800

Raw message

From: Steve <root@bitbucket.edmweb.com>
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 00:17:33 +0800
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Has Tim turned anti-PGP?
In-Reply-To: <adaea4ac18021004fc68@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960503031848.470A-100000@bitbucket.edmweb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> Unless the information is "secret," why bother? It adds extra time at his  
> office's end (you don't think Leahy types in his password to PGP do you?),
> and it accomplishes little.

I agree with you to this point... Personally, I don't encrypt or even sign
anything I send out, unless there is a reason to. For most of the mail I
send out, I don't care if third parties read it, and most of it is so   
unimportant that if it were altered (highly unlikely) I wouldn't care. In
fact, I can't recall the last time I encrypted a message (but I've signed
a couple recently).

> >From a personal viewpoint, I'm glad my key is no longer very accessible. I
> used to get PGP-encrypted messages which had no earthly reason to be 
> encrypted, except that people apparently wanted to practice their PGP

Now that's just plain un-cypherpunk of you. If people want to use PGP, let
them use PGP! There are so many scripts etc. out there to make using PGP
almost transparent, so decrypting your mail shouldn't be any harder than  
pressing a couple keys and typing in your passphrase. (I know, the
passphrase is the killer.)

Whatever happened to "Cypherpunks write code" and getting crypto out
there? It's not enough for it to just be out there, people have to feel
free to use it. Making your pgp key "no longer very accessible" doesn't
exactly support that goal.


Sorry if this is the 1001st reply you recieve.

=====================================================================
| Steve Reid - SysAdmin & Pres, EDM Web (http://www.edmweb.com/)    |
| Email: steve@edmweb.com   Home Page: http://www.edmweb.com/steve/ |
| PGP Fingerprint: 11 C8 9D 1C D6 72 87 E6  8C 09 EC 52 44 3F 88 30 |
|              -- Disclaimer: JMHO, YMMV, IANAL. --                 |
===================================================================:)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBMYncPdtVWdufMXJpAQGowggAivgMhFbR1nMKFz7wWC6h4atBBVHD+jmP
TIf/eBNj0UWXYywgfGdjS+UlrRC+u91nRmon6cWcZ7Zg5ctl0uNH6Ts162q3F3pH
GjoismTYqVFhQZMNwGI60mXUqoQShfmQz9GUX/gU9HWta7pY7xOGVwJJwL5jkAHW
ru1GtkLKVzr1ajYW+mg8Zrh+XsFTa8ruFEqN/eCx/AtOIXEmACj4qiwtDTC4WNXQ
uDWjwSeDmtn1uS121PkUdw18uzl7mV7TpBbUJojWQACC+tW5GXeyh+2aziP8WIpM
qqQyOQJ1UYzTIlXb8IBefwdsPlvKBvEaJdpmtwYLteCHMpsqSvGovQ==
=dEm6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





Thread