>>>The view I get fed all the time is that crypto is, on the whole, in >>>the hands of >>>the terrorists, the anti-patriots, the paedophiles, et al. >> >>Correct. >> >>>That it is a bad >>>thing. >> >>We don't think so. > > Mr Robinson: we understand the Bill of Rights applies to > some unsavory types too. Do you think this is a bad thing?
On the contrary. However, from the point of view of the mainstream populace, most of the times that cryptography is brought into the focus of interest, it's as the tool of an "enemy" or an undesirable. The only times I ever see it mentioned in the news, certainly - stego, coded messages, etc - but then I never really see much good news either :) I don't think people actually /care/ whether or not their mail is unencrypted, so long as it's no hassle for them whichever way - how many people really take notice of a small locked padlock icon in the corner of their browser? (It seems kind of disparate that sites will proudly display a huge gif to state that their connection is secure, but fail to provide hushmail-like pgp'd mail.) But given the choice between encrypting their own comms or not, many people would hesitate, and probably opt for the latter. Not necessarily just because it's another thing to click on, but because they see it has this affiliation with the bad people hiding the bad things. If they send a block of crypted text, then something will "mark" them out and group them as someone to monitor. Companies may try to push their secure tech as .. well, "secure". People may not even know why they need it, They Just Do. But public image and ad campaigns apparently guide people more than common sense these days, and I think at the moment there's a "marketing block" that needs to be pushed around a bit before people will actively and knowingly encrypt things.
