That's a tough one, because the examples you gave are exactly the ones that I don't want a shady ISP or other interested party to my snooping. I'm not unsympathetic, and genuinely feel bad for the people stuck with truly ancient systems. But at some point, you have to do the analysis of whether it's better to 1) give secure communication to everyone who can have it, or 2) retain insecure communications to support an ever-shrinking pool of people who can't/won't upgrade. I think we're at the point where #1 is more important.
And honestly, I think a lot of people in the second group are there because they bought smartphone in 2007 and won't upgrade because "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Well, now it's broken. Fix it.
> That's a tough one, because the examples you gave are exactly the ones that I don't want a shady ISP or other interested party to my snooping.
This sounds like a personal consideration - one you're entitled to, but perhaps shouldn't force on others. Maybe consider Tor?
> ever-shrinking pool of people who can't/won't upgrade.
Are you sure about this? The kind of security you're advocating for here is a moving target. As the pool shrinks on the tail end, surely the head advances...
> Well, now it's broken. Fix it.
Erm, no. The device isn't broken, you are willfully breaking it. I can appreciate your stance, but glib comments like this aren't going to convince anyone in that camp.
And honestly, I think a lot of people in the second group are there because they bought smartphone in 2007 and won't upgrade because "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Well, now it's broken. Fix it.