[sdoering]

Only, because I send something over an unsecure channel, does not give anybody the right to repost it publicly for the whole wide world to see. Even, if (as a coincidence) something as awful happens, as 9/11.

Sorry, but I have to agree with the parent post. Your argument could also be:

> Then maybe it's not a good idea to send them unencrypted over the air.

Even, if the channel is insecure, people used it, believing, that the private messages they sent, were/are/will be private.

I am living in Germany and I really would hate to see, if every postcard ever sent would be there for the whole wide world to see.

Yes: Unencrypted, unsecure, open, readable as a channel, but non the less protected by privacy-law.

[Firehed]

People that want their messages private should be minimally aware of the technology they're using to transmit said messages.

Nobody has a reasonable expectation of privacy when sending a postcard, and that's a decent analogy to email and other communications mediums - even HTTP for that matter. Unfortunately, because technology (or, I suppose, the protocols that power it) tends to mask that, most people just make incorrect assumptions.

No, people should not have to make these assumptions or do research into this. That's why it's important for us to design secure tools. Users assume stuff is secure, so it's our duty to ensure their assumptions are true. Let's not give people a false sense of security.

[icebraining]

Nobody has a reasonable expectation of privacy when sending a postcard

Expectation of privacy isn't boolean. There's a big difference from a few postal offices reading it and it being published online (which, at least here, would be illegal).

[hermannj314]

I agree with this entirely. Two guys standing in line at a concession at a crowded football stadium talking might have no strict expectation of privacy, but they might have an expectation of privacy from a particular audience (hypothetically, let's say their wives). When you record their conversion, you are not violating their expectations of privacy, because many people could have heard that conversion. However, were you to broadcast the recording, at that point you have violated the assumptions they thought the privacy was affording them. Some of the hackers here would argue that they shouldn't speak in plain English, but should always speak to other humans in an encrypted spoken language and because they didn't do that they deserve no privacy for speaking in English.

I would disagree with those people.