[claudius]

> First, I think we should rename the keys to 'locking key' and 'unlocking key'.

Why not go a step further and call one ‘key’ and the other ‘lock’? So you can share (copies of) your lock freely with others, and if they want to send encrypted email to you, they take your ‘lock’ and put it on that email. It then becomes obvious that you shouldn’t share the private key (after all, anybody could then unlock the locks) and that you have to make absolutely sure that you get the correct public key from others (as putting a ‘false’ lock on a letter doesn’t help).

Sure, this falls somewhat apart if you also want to consider signing…

[moocowduckquack]

That would make for nice iconography - public keys being open padlocks, private keys being keys and encrypted things being closed padlocks.

[moocowduckquack]

was bored so made something - http://postimg.org/image/8sm7otl2p/full/

[dalek_cannes]

interesting! i can clearly understand what each means, but i think the average person might get confused. how about just the key and the open padlock? signed/encrypted content can have the icon on the side (kind of like the shortcut indicator in windows)?

[moocowduckquack]

I might have a bit more of a play about with it, oh and here's the svg as a gist if anyone wants it - https://gist.github.com/anonymous/7308250

[claudius]

Okay, thinking further: The (open) (pad)locks you distribute also carry a seal impression. Then:

- to encrypt, the user takes a padlock of the recipient and adds it to the message.

- to decrypt, the recipient uses his key to open the lock.

- to sign something, you use your key as a seal, creating a unique impression on the message

- to check a signature, the recipient compares the impression on the message with the impression on the lock.

Does that make at least some sense?

[cryptos]

I like this metaphor very much. It is much easier to wrap it.