Well a blog is probably going to have a first article :\
I agree that the "world" could benefit from an easier to use cryptography product than PGP (event thought I'm fine with PGP) and I think that this post is valid criticism.
Disclaimer: Not a cryptography expert in any way, neither annoyed by the fact cryptography is hard and will probably benefit from processes like peer-review.
A nice quote from Phil Zimmerman from a comment in a post by Schneier which was posted in a comment to this post:
"I remember a conversation with Brian Snow, a highly placed senior cryptographer with the NSA. He said he would never trust an encryption algorithm designed by someone who had not earned their bones by first spending a lot of time cracking codes. That did make a lot of sense. I observed that practically no one in the commercial world of cryptography qualified under this criterion. "Yes", he said with a self assured smile, "And that makes our job at NSA so much easier." A chilling thought. I didn't qualify either. "
By the way I think that Jeffrey Paul has a relevant point, I think it deserves to be taken into account. I understand his words can hurt Nadim Kobeissi nevertheless from my point of view they carry no such will.
They are only ordering to redirect the domain to a sole ip address? Not serving HTTPS? Should links point to secure versions of seized domains or simply to attest their identity. I think it's ok to say they are the criminals on the internet and not necessarily the other way. Not that requests cannot be legitimate but at least a basic level of quality must go into the actual process because here it just looks awkward. Not to mention shitty html behind it: if you takedown domains, please show some style :)
Like DRMs?
Jokes aside, I have no idea what's going on with this whole story.