The value lies in sometimes demonstrating a channel is insecure. It won't always do so. Obviously the converse--proving a channel is secure--is much harder.
I don't think it has commercial value really. But for social awareness, showing that mail, or notes, or storage providers aren't always as private as you'd hope, that's where the value is.
But it demonstrates nothing if no one clicks. The channel may be insecure, compromised and no one knows - not the author or the parties who are supposed to have the secrets.
I see what he's trying to do, but this isn't the way I don't think. Mathematical proofs that verify that a payload is observed, opened, or accessed work. They are deterministic. They are also way more complex. I think this is trying to solve a problem in a simple way but it's still just as nondeterministic as without this solution IMO.
Absolutely. But if you have the choice between a) not knowing 100 pct of the time, and b) knowing for certain it's not private X pct of the time, for unknown X probably not 0, you'd want b. You will have more information by trying.
I don't think it has commercial value really. But for social awareness, showing that mail, or notes, or storage providers aren't always as private as you'd hope, that's where the value is.