It's also hard to create a system that's private and secure, and it's vastly less convenient to use which increases friction and drives down adoption. PGP, for example, is very good but extremely inconvenient to use all the time.
As an outsider, I think I understand the rationale behind their design decisions. Just saying it should have been more carefully created with privacy in mind glosses over the many complexities and difficulties that design goal entails.
We, as creators of software, have problems that are more political than technical, no matter where we are in the world.
That's the crux of the issue. They weren't forced to close down, they chose to.
End of discussion.
EDIT: Actually, why don't we see what the CEO of CertiVox has to say on the matter?
"The headline strongly infers our friends at GCHQ “forced” us to take PrivateSky down. That’s hogwash."
Your interpretation is extremely naïve. I could hold a gun to your head, for example. You wouldn't be forced per se to meet my demands, but you probably would because it would be extremely unreasonable not to. In the same way, the consequences for not complying are: an extremely expensive and possibly unaffordable rewrite, going to jail for a few years, or giving up their customers data in violation of their principles. The GHCQ order effectively put a gun to their head.
GCHQ never demanded that CertiVox shut down their service. That is the bottom line and, no matter what sort of ridiculous "gun against your head" rationale you come up with or how firmly you plug your ears while shouting "LALALA!" at the top of your voice; you cannot refute that fact.
EDIT: Actually, why don't we see what the CEO of CertiVox has to say on the matter?
"The headline strongly infers our friends at GCHQ “forced” us to take PrivateSky down. That’s hogwash."
Are you PG? No? Then who are you to decide when a discussion ends round here?
Wrong. I HAVE been forced. You have threatened me with death if I don't comply with your demand.
GCHQ never demanded that CertiVox shut down their service. They (or, rather, the Home Secretary) demanded that they hand over the key(s) required to decrypt one (or more) of CertiVox's customer's data.
If CertiVox took it upon themselves to then shut down the PrivateSky service, that is their choice. But it is a lie to claim that GCHQ forced them to.
CertiVox could claim that they "felt they had no option but to shut down the service" or that they "could no longer, in all conscience, continue to offer and market a service that" blah blah blah but, the fact is that they always knew that PrivateSky was vulnerable to section 49 notices.
RIPA's been on the statute books for over a decade and section 49 has been in force since 2007. CertiVox launched PrivateSky in 2011, which means that they either built a service that they knew was vulnerable to RIPA disclosure requirements or they didn't know about RIPA. I don't believe that they didn't know about RIPA.
It doesn't matter what special snowflake rationale you come up with about what's reasonable or unreasonable. The simple fact of the matter is that the headline is misleading. GCHQ did not force PrivateSky to shut down.
EDIT: Even the CEO of CertiVox refutes the claim that GCHQ forced the closure of PrivateSky!
"The headline strongly infers our friends at GCHQ “forced” us to take PrivateSky down. That’s hogwash."