-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 1/23/12 6:23 PM, MFPA wrote: > Suggestions like this tend to get lambasted because they do not > enhance security, and privacy appears to be seen as unimportant.
Not in the slightest. The idea is certainly worthwhile. It's just that there's no implementation of it, nor even a solid idea of how to implement it. If we're going to play a game of "wouldn't it be nice if," I'd like honest politicians, stronger beer, and lower taxes. I am skeptical that such a thing can be done, and for that reason elect to not spend time on it. But please don't misrepresent my position, or that of others who share my position, as believing that "privacy is unimportant." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iFYEAREIAAYFAk8d+dkACgkQI4Br5da5jhDawgDfdL3cOL3u6zHr4plxfmkz+iRa CJ1ATZTP48/uAQDdG9yBhRDtJg+5NLzT+rZ45bmovlO9AmrPlp1yhA== =e6BB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
