Jeremy Blosser wrote: > > a) live in a world where no one has locks on their doors, except for > the very few people that know how to build their own lock from scratch > and check it every morning for any scratches to indicate someone tried > to break in, and the robbers just skip those and go rob all the other > houses with no locks > > or > > b) live in a world where everyone has locks on their doors, most of > which are very easy to pick, but the robbers have to take their > chances with any given lock -- and since the locks are the normal > thing, and lots of time is spent on them, even the crappy locks are > better than they would be in (a) well if the lock gives a false sense of security and makes one develop a false sense of security, perhaps no lock is better - then you'd be more likely to sit next to the door with a baseball bat.
i think your analogy is imperfect... encryption isn't like an envelope or a locked door, and most people don't care about the privacy of their personal communications as much as they do about their personal posessions / bodily safety. if you have a crappy house and no valuable posessions, you're probably not going to worry too much about locking the door; hell i don't lock my door a lot of the time. > Reality is more complicated and interdependant than that. so perhaps it's best to stay away from analogies altogether.... we're talking about electronic encryption here, something that opens up a whole new can of worms - i don't think there are many analogies that really capture some of the complexities involved here. w
