Douglas, I'm not sure many people are disagreeing with the end-goals and even Zimmerman acknolwedges the window for verifiable source proof is closing fast (longer than many would have liked as-is).
My comments to Nadim are coming from a tact perspective - if the goal is to gain wider adoption and recognition for all the community work, good projects, verified projects, etc. etc. then it helps when you play in the sanboxes occupied by more than the hackers and programmers making it happen. It's not uncommon to have people, who need solutions the most, to be afraid of projects because of the "main name" associated with them after some cursory rant reading. Nadim = Cryptocat, Jacob = TOR, Theo = OpenBSD, etc. etc. It's easy to tell everyone else to pound sand or to roll all activist causes into one for the collective libtech "us" - it's not so each when we take it elsewhere. Just trying to see how we can promote things that look less like personal grips and trolls - and more like building something useful. -Ali On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Douglas Lucas <d...@riseup.net> wrote: > Can Silent Circle promoters explain why Zimmerman is excused from > Kerckhoffs's principle? > > Is it because something unverifiable is allegedly better than nothing? > Even if we had divine knowledge to tell us Silent Circle is secure, > isn't it an overriding problem to encourage lock-in of closed source > being acceptable for something as common as text-messaging? > > It is good to have a scrappy talented young person such as Nadim being > pesky to older, accepted people. > > > On 02/07/2013 09:45 AM, Julien Rabier wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I'm no sec expert but to me, it's so obvious that Nadim is right on this. > > Perhaps the form is not perfect, but if he's the only one fighting for > our > > own sanity here, as he says, that's no surprise. > > > > We should all be asking Silent Circle to commit to their statement and > show > > us the source code of their so-called unbreakable encryption tools. > > > > Again, I'm no sec expert and I won't be the guy who will do the hard > task of > > auditing and reviewing this code. But as a user, as a citizen and > perhaps an > > activist, I want the source code of such tools to be reviewed widely and > > publicly before using and promoting it. > > > > My 2 euro cents, > > Julien > > > > Le 07 févr. - 10:31, Nadim Kobeissi a écrit : > >> Small follow-up: > >> Maybe it's true I look like my goal here is just to foam at the mouth at > >> Silent Circle. Maybe it looks like I'm just here to annoy Chris, and I'm > >> truly sorry. These are not my goals, even if my method seems forced. > >> > >> I've tried writing multiple blog posts about Silent Circle, contacting > >> Silent Circle, asking journalists to *please* mention the importance of > >> free, open source in cryptography, and so on. All of this has failed. It > >> has simply become clear to me that Silent Circle enjoys a double > standard > >> because of the reputation of those behind it. > >> > >> Silent Circle may be developed by Gods, but this is just quite plainly > >> unfair. If someone repeatedly claims, towards activists, to have > developed > >> "unbreakable encryption", markets it closed-source for money, and > receives > >> nothing but nods of recognition and applause from the press and even > >> from *security > >> experts* (?!) then something is seriously wrong! No one should be > allowed > >> to commit these wrongs, not even Silent Circle. > >> > >> I feel like I'm fighting for our own sanity here. Look at what you're > >> allowing to happen! > >> > >> > >> NK > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Nadim Kobeissi <na...@nadim.cc> wrote: > >> > >>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Christopher Soghoian < > ch...@soghoian.net>wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> It is clear that you seem to have developed a foaming-in-the-mouth, > >>>> irrational hate of Silent Circle. As such, anyone who fails to > denounce > >>>> Phil Zimmermann as the great Satan is, in your eyes, some kind of > corrupt > >>>> shill. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Chris, > >>> You have repeatedly stood up asking VoIP software to be more > transparent > >>> about their encryption. You have repeatedly stood up when the media > >>> overblew coverage into hype. > >>> > >>> However, Silent Circle remains *the only case* where you remain > mentioned > >>> regularly in articles on the company, where you make a point to > completely > >>> ignore that they are posting everywhere on their social media that > they are > >>> developing "unbreakable encryption", and marketing it, closed-source, > >>> towardsactivists. When I confront you about this, you publicly accuse > me of > >>> "soliciting a hit piece" (!!) against Silent Circle. > >>> > >>> That is what I have a problem with: A huge, clear, obvious double > standard > >>> strictly made available for Silent Circle. > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I proudly stand by every single statement quoted in that Verge story. > >>>> > >>>> Chris > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Nadim Kobeissi <na...@nadim.cc> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Chris Soghoian gives Silent Circle's unbreakable encryption an entire > >>>>> article's worth of lip service here, it must be really unbreakable: > >>>>> > >>>>> > http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/6/3950664/phil-zimmermann-wants-to-save-you-from-your-phone > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> NK > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Brian Conley < > bri...@smallworldnews.tv>wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I heard they have a super secret crypto clubhouse in the belly of an > >>>>>> extinct volcano. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Other rumors suggest they built their lab in the liberated tunnels > >>>>>> beneath bin ladens secret lair in Pakistan... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sent from my iPad > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Feb 6, 2013, at 19:42, Nadim Kobeissi <na...@nadim.cc> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Actual headline. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/147714-cryptography-super-group-creates-unbreakable-encryption-designed-for-mass-market > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> NK > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > >>>>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > >>>>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > >>>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > >>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > >>>> > >>> > >>> > > > >> -- > >> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > > > -- > > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech >
-- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
