I totally agree, I really think you should change the name.
Some suggestions:
- Locke Mail [from John Locke]
- Mill Mail [from John Stuart Mill]
- Hobbes Mail
- Liberty Mail
Some suggestions:
- Locke Mail [from John Locke]
- Mill Mail [from John Stuart Mill]
- Hobbes Mail
- Liberty Mail
Consider that for example Mill thought despotism could be acceptable under utilitarian principles if the end result was a better society afterwards; I don't know what you think of Marx [Marx Mail? Maybe not], but even an authoritarian reading of Marx ideological works fits within utilitarian principles to those who agree with it, while those who read Marx from a libertarian viewpoint, e.g. left communists, would generally find Mills distastefully authoritarian.
Locke was a major investor in the slave trade, and a central participant in trying to institute a feudal aristocracy in Carolina - writing about freedoms while trying to deprive others of them. Locke Mail in that respect would be fitting brand for a NSA run mail service for its hypocrisy alone.
Hobbes, while talking about individual rights, was a supporter of a strong central government an a supporter of absolute monarchy. He too would be a suitable beacon for the NSA.
That is not to say that these people were not important for the development of philosophical ideas related to freedom, but only in relation to the politics of the time. Today all three of them are archaic and authoritarian compared to a lot of more recent philosophers.
As for Liberty Mail, outside of the US at least it would be likely to leave a bad taste with a lot of people. It reads like Far-Right-Wing-US-Nationalistic-Nutjob-Mail or Lets-Pretend-It-Is-Liberty-While-We-Screw-You-Over-Mail to me, and I know a lot of people likely to have similar reactions.
-SecMail (Secure Email)
-PrivMail (private/privacy email)
-FMail (freedom email)
-NetMail (New Internet standard email)
And thank you for taking this on, it is seriously needed. And please, no reliance on CA certs, chances are the NSA has compromised at least some of those.
Well, Bruce Schneier has argued that that's what security is becoming today: feudal (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/12/feudal_sec.ht...). If you wanted to, you could instead call most if not all currently existing email services "Hobbes mail".
[1] Liberalism in it's classic and original sense (not the skewed meaning that it somehow has gotten here in the US).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United...
The social contract of Hobbes is not something one can opt out of, or refuse, but an explanation and justification for individual rights within an absolute monarchy. At the same time Hobbes argued that to preserve the peace was so central that the sovereign had the power, and was indeed duty bound under the social contract, to take whatever measures necessary to ensure peace - even authoritarian measures.
His ideas on social contract theory are historically important as a pre-cursor to more expansive ideas about personal freedoms, but they are extremely authoritarian by most modern standards.
I would go with something like 'sealed mail' and imply the imagery of how in the olden days mail was sealed with a wax stamp. A strong visual analogy can be very powerful.
What I am implying is that it seems like a localized term and people elsewhere might have no connotation(?) to it. In German the word means a curl of hair.
He was a British philosopher from the 1600s, an important Enlightenment thinker.
He was very progressive for his time, and so he's one of the "icons" of classical liberalism, but he died in 1704, and we've moved on a tad from then.
I'd argue that the name should work on the assumption that it is the defacto standard, and so there is no need to distinguish between "normal mail" and "new mail". It should also contain a possessive pronoun. (Something like "YourMail", if not already taken?).
With such a name, when someone attacks the mail service it will be difficult to avoid attacking the person, as an attacker will have to attack "YourMail". Attack the person and the person will react.
Not distinguishing between normal and new will have two effects:
1) It will seem a normal thing for the uninitiated to use it.
2) In the case of an attack, it will be easier for people to say the attack is directed at themselves, since the generic name will draw people in, rather than letting them dismiss it as an exclusive club.
My point from the above is that names do matter.