Nadim Kobeissi <na...@nadim.cc> wrote: > The technical aspects aside, I find the fact that they're using Aaron > Swartz as a marketing asset to be morally problematic. :/ > > NK > > I was originally conflicted by this as well, but... Considering he was the architect of the project and worked on it, and his family/friends seem to be at peace with it... I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye.
What happens to our projects when we die? Will anyone really care about them as much as we do? Will they be mired in potential controversy and left unfinished? There are layers and layers of things that need to be considered when something like this happens, and as I don't know personally know anyone involved, I'm just giving people the benefit of the doubt. If every investigative journalist took the time to learn PGP, Strongbox wouldn't have much to offer. It's *completely* possible to encrypt files on a flash drive and mail it to a journalist (or email it using Tor and a throwaway email). This process is not even especially difficult under Windows. The problem is a lack of user education. I haven't taken a look at the code yet, but cobbling together a webmail script, a remailer (even a not-especially-robust one), and the Stanford javascript crypto library would not be a particularly arduous task. It's not trivial, and you'd have to be a coder, but due diligence and selecting file hosts and all of that would be the hardest part of this entire process. best, Griffin -- Technical Program Associate, Open Technology Institute #Foucault / PGP: 0xAE792C97 / OTR: sa...@jabber.ccc.de
-- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
