YEARS ago I wrote a long rant about laywers' electronic mail still not being encrypted (even after Snowden's NSA and GCHQ leaks). They don't value privacy. They claim to care, but not really; not in practice, not in the technical sense or by any technical means. An envelope in the post (snail mail) or a phonecall (on the landline) might offer more privacy than electronic mail because surveillance on those (voice recognition, opening letters etc.) is a bit more expensive. There's an overhead, but no encryption.

"An envelope in the post (snail mail) or a phonecall (on the landline) might offer more privacy than electronic mail because surveillance on those (voice recognition, opening letters etc.) is a bit more expensive. There's an overhead, but no enryption."This has sadly become the 'norm'; law firms speak of aspects such as privacy and "privilege"; but in practice? Well, they do hardly anything towards that. Usually nothing towards it! To make matters worse, they give a wrong impression or the false expectation of privacy. It's an illusion or deliberate deception. If you are not going to encrypt your data and your communications, then quit speaking of "privilege" altogether. You value it only in principle or in theory, but not in practice. So your practice misleads clients.

This isn't limited to patent law firms, where subpoenas can lose one a case. ⬆