Re: Ah, Traffic Analysis
No, it's not a "mostly ill reason". There are several good reasons.
Let me give you a few examples: An accountant wants to share tax data with the client - that's sensitive private data, that is required by law to be kept safe, so it should be encrypted.
A doctor wants to send health data to a patient, again, it's data that is required by law to be kept private.
Without encryption it cannot and should not be sent by e-mail.
A lawyer wants to send sensitive court or law-suit data to a client. It would be stupid, wrong and possibly malpractice to send such info unencrypted.
A business company making widgets sends the latest data about how well the newest widget performs
from the engineering department to the accounting department. They would be idiotic if they did not
encrypt such data.
A secretary of state, say Hillary Clinton, sends sensitive government data from her private e-mail account
unencrypted. It would be goofy if she really did that. Oh, what? oh she really did? oh, that's a bad example then. (Let's blame it on Microsoft and its spirit of openness.)
Alrighty then, several US embassy operators were sending sensitive government data home to Washington DC in plain text, without encryption. It'd be sort of dumb if they did that. Oh they did, that's another bad example. Sorry.
Or let's say the US FDA sends info about approving the latest drug from Pfizer or Merck, etc unencrypted to their clients. That would be dumb. Not sure if they do that. I am not on their list of clients.
Or the US Army cables that they are going to "Attack at dawn" in plaintext. That would be stupid.
At any rate, I believe I made my point that there are many reasons why certain data should be
transmitted only in a safely encrypted fashion, and that these many reasons have nothing to do with
terrorism or weird anarchist ideas.
Now do you get it?