And I should seriously implement the Signal protocol on decades old equipment in the middle of a company infrastructure that's on an intra-net, when I can hack something perfectly serviceable instead. Well... I mean... Yes, I should :-) But it's just not reasonable that I'm going to get that budget.
Not every application is your application. Not every fight is your fight. If you absolutely must insult someone, target it and be specific. But, better yet, get your message across without insulting people. It will be much, much better.
I reject the idea that people should seriously consider the shoddy security of encrypted emails so that your "decades old equipment in the middle of a company infrastructure that's on an intra-net" can participate on equal terms with commodity phones that are 2x as capable. That's the quintessential argument for ergonomics over security, and that's the offensive argument, not mine.
Voluntarily removing this message because I don't think it holds with the rules of HN. I wish I could have a productive conversation on this topic, but it seems like it's not in the cards. Hope you have a good day, otherwise.
I am having a GREAT day (hiccup!).
I didn't see your original message but I'm sure it was well-intentioned and wrong. I am wrong often too. Just not this time.
Taking back an HN post you think will be taken as uncivil is a strong move. Respect for taking the community seriously. There's nothing personal in my criticism of encrypted email; it's the technology I hate, not the people behind it.
Well, I would be remiss if I didn't say that I also take you seriously and respect you. I also don't think you are wrong... at least in the way you are looking at it. I think there are other ways to look at it, though. Still, no excuse for me being grumpy.
They've already done it for you, so you don't need to worry about implementing it:
This is disingenuous. My wife for example would be fired if she didn't encrypt medical records that she has no choice but to email as part of her job. There are thousands of people in just our US state that she might need to communicate protected health information with. Those thousands of people are not signaling. They would just prefer to keep their jobs.
I have no problem with anyone sending encrypted email because they are legally required to do so. I'm sure there are a bunch more corner cases like that, and I'll have the same response to all of them. I think it's pretty clear who the intended target of my critique is.
Corner case? I would have thought sending secrets via email was more than just a corner case of encrypted email. I don't actually use encrypted email though myself.
People required to use encrypted email may well be majority of users using encrypted email. In that context its for sure not corner case. But in context of all people using email and people looking for more privacy it is for sure corner case.
I think author is advocating for all of communications to be encrypted and it cant be email because its just bad. People should stop advocating for it.
People should stop using encrypted email.