If you're securing something like THAT, it's very sensible to use algorithms that permit decoys using one key and hiding the real data under an alternative key. Truecrypt does this, for example.
I couldn't say that better myself. The only comment I would like to add is that there may be some clever people out there who might be able to devise a simple encryption algorithm that may be stronger than SSL, but I'd bet they have a degree in mathematics rather than computer science, if you know what I mean. Check out the Vernam cipher, for example. Simple, yet perfectly secure (in theory, implementations may vary). I don't know what education Gilbert Vernam had, but in 1917 I doubt it was in computer science.
My first thought upon reading the summary was, "Nine percent? I'm glad that at least the majority of slashdot users have switched." And then I thought, "Oh wait, look what I'm running..."
I bounce from machine to machine at work, never staying long enough on one machine to bother customizing it. Rather than install Firefox or Chrome on each computer I use, I just use whatever's already there. IE 8 is on every machine, so I find myself using it more often than I realized.
It never occurred to me that a lot of the 9% is probably people who aren't using it by preference, but simply because they're lazy (myself included).
Come on guys, this is Slashdot we're on here!
There's another big problem with using a centralized server. As soon as someone wants to wreak havoc on Facebook, all they have to do is DDOS the key server. If this were to catch on and most images become encrypted like that, it'd be a pretty quick and easy way to upset a lot of people.
Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.