Your argument seems to be that if there isn't perfect security, then it's worthless. I'm arguing for sane minimum standards so Jane Q. Random sitting somewhere on the network between me and my recipient can't just run Snort and read the shit out on their screen. So that the connection can't be easily routed to somewhere else and grab the data. With email as it is today, these things are possible for a reasonably intelligent middle schooler.
Yeah, CA system is shit. but they are better than nothing. I don't trust it won't be compromised by a government NSL, but I trust it enough that I'll pay for ebay crap over SSL at a coffee shop and not worry that the guy next to me is sniffing my credit card number.
Here's what starting over means to me: you don't break something that basically works. If you start adding incompatible changes to email, then it splits the network. Instead create a parallel network with minimum standards attached to it (for instance,) and maybe nobody will use it but it also won't break anything.
Yeah, CA system is shit. but they are better than nothing. I don't trust it won't be compromised by a government NSL, but I trust it enough that I'll pay for ebay crap over SSL at a coffee shop and not worry that the guy next to me is sniffing my credit card number.
Here's what starting over means to me: you don't break something that basically works. If you start adding incompatible changes to email, then it splits the network. Instead create a parallel network with minimum standards attached to it (for instance,) and maybe nobody will use it but it also won't break anything.