Also, a part of the social/political problem is that people tend to not know that the crypto they are using is bad, and political activists tend to not necessarily be cryptography experts either, so how would they know that they are in danger when everyone around them tells them that the broken crypto they are using is the thing to use?
> Also, a part of the social/political problem is that
> people tend to not know that the crypto they are using is
> bad, and political activists tend to not necessarily be
> cryptography experts either, so how would they know that
> they are in danger when everyone around them tells them
> that the broken crypto they are using is the thing to use?
But there is always going to be a problem with telling people "use our software and you can organise the overthrow of your government without fear". There is no way around the fact that people who are doing that need to understand the risks better than most people do.
(How are you supposed to blockquote text on HN?)
As for the fact that people who do risky things need to be a bit more cautious anyway: Well, yes, but that does not mean that they would not benefit if everyone knew which crypto tools are secure and how to use them, and in contrast to most of physical security, there really is not that much need to distinguish between "professional" and "end customer" tools - proofing your vault against bombs might be a bit more expensive than proofing it against a burglar, but secure cryptography does not need more expensive computers or anything like that.
And also no clue how you to quote here ... ;)
I think perhaps a neglected aspect of the problem is how to turn difficult social / political problems (eg. nobody uses PGP and people think you're a weirdo if you try to persuade them to) into tractable technical problems (the kind cryptographers mostly talk about). I sometimes think it would be preferable to start from a point where everybody had public and private keys and knew how to use them, but the crypto was no better then ROT13, than the current situation where the crypto is pretty good but getting people to use it is nearly impossible.
I also think the emotive "bad crypto puts lives at risk" argument only really makes sense if you're talking about crypto for the military or a small number of political activists, who will in any case benefit if their encrypted transmissions are buried among everybody else's. Those people need to be more careful than the rest of us with our more quotidian privacy concerns. I would rather have more bad (but tractable) crypto than great crypto that is used by nobody.
Hopefully somebody will persuade me I am wrong about this so I can stop feeling like a crypto heretic.