Aren’t you assuming the sender of the email is not the malicious party? What if the email is messages between a spouse and their illicit lover? Or between a blackmailer and their victim? Or between an internet sociopath and their designated hate-object? Hard enough to get the authorities to respond to internet stalking as it is; if you can’t even forward the hate-mail, it upgrades the difficulty a level, at least.
Not being able to show the main evidence in court — assuming the DRM isn’t broken, because that would be difficult if no-one is allowed to research how to do that — makes things a lot more difficult.
This reminds me a bit of fabled Incognito Mode a feature that is so deeply misunderstood by so many people. This thing will add a layer of false sense of security to so many naive users.
[quote=“durrant_p, post:16, topic:124813”]
make this impossible to do without knowing it is against my expressed wishes” - [/quote]
that was not the original intention. And it still isn’t the intention of most people using DRM. Using DRM would also be overkill for this reason. A simple ‘please do not copy’ flag would suffice. DRM tries to make copying hard. But because it’s mathematically impossible it has to resort to ‘dirty tricks’. Like making you not really own your devices. And writing laws to prevent you to inspect software on your own device.
the exact way locks work out in the real world.
Ehm. When I used to live in a village, I always left my door open. The ‘Honest People’ (a.k.a. people who knew me) didn’t need not lock to know I did not want my stuff taken.
And it’s definitely not the ‘honest people’ for whom I lock my doors, now that I live in a city.
it’s a nice aphorism to put on a tile (or in a marketing campaign), but it’s not really true.
Look, I get the parallel between locks and DRM, but locks don’t need the before mentioned ‘dirty tricks’.
