if you have something to hide, please step aside...?

[peter.segment at wronghead.com]

On 25/08/12 17:41, Charly Avital - shavital at gmail.com wrote:
>
> Nobody has to hide, this is not about hiding. [...] when one
 > sends or receives an encrypted message, the mere
> format of such a communication hollers loud and clear that
> the user is protecting his/her communications, not hiding.

This was never in any dispute, as indeed I believe it to be the
case for a vast majority of GPG users: they use it to demonstrate
an important principle, and not because they "have something to
hide".

I applaud them for this.

But at some point we have to ask ourselves: what about those that
actually *do have something to hide*? Who are they hiding from,
and for what reason? Do they have a realistic alternative? Are we,
as the tool suppliers, viewing those that are, just for instance,
pushing the boundary of what is and what isn't "constitutional and
democratic" (and it is a very soft boundary, depending perhaps only
on the depth of one's pockets in the best of places, but also on
things like skin color, ethnicity and gender in many other?) as 
undeserving of our tools?

I fully understand and agree with the view of most here who believe
that GPG should be used by those who have nothing to hide. The open
question is: should it *also* be used by those that do? And if the
answer is "yes", is it conditional? Do we take upon ourselves to
know what exactly are they hiding, why and from whom, what side of
the boundary (or barricade), as we see it, they happen to be, before
providing a somewhat modified version of the tool, one that serves
~their~ needs as well as possible?

Peter M.