I get the feeling Apple over-sold FileVault.
It's handy in some limited circumstances, where a user's
entire datastore must be encrypted. However, for the average user -- and even quite advanced purposes -- it strikes me as a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
I've yet to test out what I'm about to propose, but it should work...
As many know, it's essentially harnessing OS X's ability to create encrypted disk images. It's been pointed out up-thread that, for example, email is most probably a key area for encryption.
This is how I remember OS X working: create an encrypted disk image, and create an alias to one of the files/folders on it on your desktop. Now, unmount the disk image. Double-clicking the alias should automatically cause the encrypted image to be mounted, and you'll be prompted for the password.
Now, maybe it's possible to put ~/Library/Mail on an encrypted drive, and still automagically let Mail access via the above behaviour? In which case, maybe it's possible to AppleScript the entire process of setting this up?
I feel a search of macosxhints.com coming on...
Ah. Look
here
Now, if Apple created a warm cuddly front-end to this, surely that'd make a lot of people happy?
Dunno... FileVault just struck me as a really risky thing to try on first-release. Actually, anything that does
something to
everything sets off alarm bells
By the way, I would never suggest that a problem with FileVault is indicative of any intrinsic problems with OS X. The implementation of this feature looks like it leaves a bit to be desired, but there's nothing wrong with the technologies involved. I know it sounds like splitting hairs -- and to the user the end result is the same: bad... but I guarantee there's someone in Cupertino with their head buried in Xcode ironing out the bugs.
Heh. Having said all that, I'm sure the only thing that stopped me turning it on myself was the fact my old iMac might melt if I did...
