I just feel that these sorts of criticisms, that are not sandwiched with at least a little positive message, are keeping people paralyzed in gmail and yahoo and msn while they wait for perfection.
As theboss mentioned [1], is:
(a) browser crypto theoretically impossible, is it
(b) that something's practically from browsers today (like build-in crypto code) for a practical solution, or is it
(c) that existing attempts have not attempted to do something that is theoretically possible?
If I understood you correctly, you alluded verification might be possible [2] but it seems there isn't yet a clear description or understanding of what's possible and what's not.
(I recognize it might inherently be a hard problem, but hard does not equal impossible. I also recognize there are benefits to a simpler solution that can outweigh the benefits of a harder solution.)
Look at Lavabit, which was good but not perfect... everyone thought they were protected enough, and then the government came knocking and all of a sudden the little gotcha of "Well, Lavabit did have access to your data after all, even though they promised not to look and also be really careful about their encryption keys" is the crack they use to blow the entire thing open. (Though that was a pretty damn big crack, admittedly.)
If there's a way to break in, then it will be broken in to--and then "good enough" all of a sudden becomes "tragically and dangerously broken" for the kinds of people who trusted it the most: activists, whistleblowers, informants, political radicals, etc.