-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/16/2015 03:19 PM, Al Billings wrote:
The problem is that I am a practical person who lives in the real world.
*** The real world is something that belongs to the Past, before the
discovery of the Quantum, Max Planck's Constant, and the
Le 16/01/2015 21:18, carlo von lynX a écrit :
Al, you may want to deviate the discussion towards the 10.000th
debate about proprietary vs free software, but the topic here is
the impossibility for a U.S. company to deliver what it promises.
My 10 000th comment about this kind of discussion is
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:19:22AM -0800, Al Billings wrote:
The problem is that I am a practical person who lives in the real world.
The largest, most successful project in the history of computing has
been built entirely on open standards, open protocols, open formats,
and open source: you're
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/16/15 14:52, Cypher wrote:
On 01/15/2015 11:29 AM, carlo von lynX wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 08:49:31AM -0800, Steve Weis wrote:
Note you said users will never know if e2e is being used,
but as Moxie says we'll be surfacing this into the
Hi,
Why would anyone bother to change your Twitter image? What do they gain
from that?
--
Matt Johnson
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 9:00 AM, J.M. Porup j...@porup.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/16/15 14:52, Cypher wrote:
On 01/15/2015 11:29 AM, carlo von lynX
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/17/2015 02:24 PM, Matt Johnson wrote:
Hi,
Why would anyone bother to change your Twitter image? What do they gain
from that?
*** Confusion, diversion of attention. That's enough. If one spends 5
seconds doing it and 3 spend 5 minutes
On 01/17/15 12:24, Matt Johnson wrote:
Hi,
Why would anyone bother to change your Twitter image? What do they gain
from that?
Intimidation.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
JMP
--
Liberationtech is public archives are searchable on Google. Violations of
On Jan 17, 2015, at 3:08 AM, Aymeric Vitte vitteayme...@gmail.com wrote:
My 10 000th comment about this kind of discussion is always the same: js apps
inside browsers (or to a certain extent nodejs, ff os), which surprisingly
seem to be systematically disconsidered, can solve the
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 02:46:56PM -0800, Al Billings wrote:
I thought software freedom and access to the source code was considered
a requirement for considering a system secure.
According to whom? I think open source (I???ll leave aside whether ???open
source??? is ???free software???)
On Jan 16, 2015, at 2:07 AM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
Open source is not merely ideal, open source
is MANDATORY. It is not sufficient, of course, but it is necessary.
All closed-source software not only may be, but *must be* immediately
dismissed as unsuitable for use, with
Except for the totally unacceptable way you are speaking of a
human being here, you aren't saying anything which is incompatible
with what I said... so will you return on topic or do you want to
produce the impression the Whatsapp issue is about proprietary
software in general, which it isn't?
On Jan 16, 2015, at 10:43 AM, carlo von lynX l...@time.to.get.psyced.org
wrote:
so will you return on topic or do you want to
produce the impression the Whatsapp issue is about proprietary
software in general, which it isn't?
The Whatsapp “issue” was addressed at least 15 messages ago.
On 01/15/2015 11:29 AM, carlo von lynX wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 08:49:31AM -0800, Steve Weis wrote:
Note you said users will never know if e2e is being used, but
as Moxie says we'll be surfacing this into the UI of upgraded
clients.
There is a systemic legal problem by which neither
Al, you may want to deviate the discussion towards the 10.000th
debate about proprietary vs free software, but the topic here is
the impossibility for a U.S. company to deliver what it promises.
Should the U.S. develop an interest in regaining international
trust, they would need to remove
On Jan 16, 2015, at 12:18 PM, carlo von lynX l...@time.to.get.psyced.org
wrote:
Al, you may want to deviate the discussion towards the 10.000th
debate about proprietary vs free software, but the topic here is
the impossibility for a U.S. company to deliver what it promises.
And I asked,
On Jan 16, 2015, at 12:18 PM, carlo von lynX l...@time.to.get.psyced.org
wrote:
You may find it funny, but apparently employees at Google want to
believe PRISM can't possibly have happened. Anything that serves as
an excuse to legitimize staying in that company, earning all that money.
I
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 01:37:12PM -0800, Al Billings wrote:
On Jan 16, 2015, at 12:18 PM, carlo von lynX l...@time.to.get.psyced.org
wrote:
Al, you may want to deviate the discussion towards the 10.000th debate
about proprietary vs free software, but the topic here is the
On Jan 16, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Leif Ryge l...@synthesize.us wrote:
I did see two answers earlier, Iceland and Switzerland. There are many other
countries besides those two where it also seems very unlikely that companies
would be subjected to the sort of legal orders that we now know US
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 02:12:38PM -0800, Al Billings wrote:
On Jan 16, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Leif Ryge l...@synthesize.us wrote:
I did see two answers earlier, Iceland and Switzerland. There are many
other countries besides those two where it also seems very unlikely that
companies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/15/2015 09:07 PM, Al Billings wrote:
You said that I was a “compatriot of that service”
*** Oh, sorry, I thought you were an U.S. citizen.
==
hk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
Hello Carlo. This is about backward compatibility. WhatsApps is running on
hundreds of millions of iOS, Android, Windows, Blackberry and Nokia phones.
There are even people using it on 8 year old Java ME feature phones. It's
not feasible to simultaneously upgrade their installed apps to support
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 08:49:31AM -0800, Steve Weis wrote:
Note you said users will never know if e2e is being used, but as Moxie
says we'll be surfacing this into the UI of upgraded clients.
There is a systemic legal problem by which neither Facebook, nor
Whatsapp, nor Textsecure nor Moxie
Actually, you also need to have source code for the compilers
used and the compiler's compilers...
And that ignores the use of hardware trojans.
On 01/15/2015 12:29 PM, carlo von lynX wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 08:49:31AM -0800, Steve Weis wrote:
Note you said users will never know if e2e
On Jan 15, 2015, at 11:20 AM, J.M. Porup j...@porup.com wrote:
On 01/15/15 13:45, Al Billings wrote:
Insisting that we both can and cannot (at the same time) trust people like
Moxie simply because they live in the USA and the NSA exists is stupid. I
don’t see a suggestion of what
Good point, it's unfair to isolate out just the US. Seems like some other
nations viewed the Snowden disclosures as prescriptive or aspirational, or
were already aligned. Britain, for instance! So tragic what's happening
there.
There are some countries where the respect for individual
Centralization is the problem.
If we assume that all centralized software has been commandeered (as we
should), I would rather see that commandeering evenly distributed around
the world, competing against each other, than concentrated into the
vile, toxic stew that is Silicon Valley in the US.
Not by going elsewhere. By changing the direction and/or leadership of
the country.
I'd like to go back toward the direction of land of the free and home of
the brave instead of a place where it's illegal to buy a Big Gulp and
it's considered unfair that I work my butt off and earn a lot of
On 01/15/15 14:25, Al Billings wrote:
On Jan 15, 2015, at 11:20 AM, J.M. Porup j...@porup.com wrote:
On 01/15/15 13:45, Al Billings wrote:
Insisting that we both can and cannot (at the same time) trust people like
Moxie simply because they live in the USA and the NSA exists is stupid. I
Insisting that we both can and cannot (at the same time) trust people like
Moxie simply because they live in the USA and the NSA exists is stupid. I don’t
see a suggestion of what jurisdiction the author thinks people can live within
where there won’t be the same issues. From there, the list of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/15/2015 02:35 PM, Al Billings wrote:
Pull that tinfoil hat a little tighter.
*** Aren't the Snowden leaks enough? What else do you need really?
Then go visit the GNU.org section on Malware.
Deflecting legitimate criticism with such a
So, which countries exist where we *can* trust the binaries when they’re made
within them?
On Jan 15, 2015, at 10:38 AM, Brian Behlendorf br...@behlendorf.com wrote:
Sadly, given what we know about the current state of play and the actors
involved (state-based, non-state, ad-tech
On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 11:44 -0800, Al Billings wrote:
You’re avoiding the question. Please name a nation state in which
software can be produced which isn’t subject to the kind of legal
pressures or potential requirements as the USA when it comes to
national security, spying, and the like.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:50:41PM -0500, Richard Brooks wrote:
Actually, you also need to have source code for the compilers
used and the compiler's compilers...
Yes, we have those. We have systems completely produced from
source and others that are working on complete reproduceability.
And
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, carlo von lynX wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:50:41PM -0500, Richard Brooks wrote:
Actually, you also need to have source code for the compilers
used and the compiler's compilers...
Yes, we have those. We have systems completely produced from
source and others that are
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:45:16AM -0800, Al Billings wrote:
Insisting that we both can and cannot (at the same time) trust people like
Moxie simply because they live in the USA and the NSA exists is stupid.
You are free to trust him to spend a night at your home. I would
if he was my friend,
On Jan 15, 2015, at 2:33 PM, hellekin helle...@gnu.org wrote:
Signed PGP part
On 01/15/2015 04:44 PM, Al Billings wrote:
So, since you can’t trust any software (so you say) produced in the USA
*** Not any software: non-free software, and software running on
servers subjected to gag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/15/2015 04:44 PM, Al Billings wrote:
So, since you can’t trust any software (so you say) produced in the USA
*** Not any software: non-free software, and software running on
servers subjected to gag orders, as you well know for being a
Of course I know about Lavabit. That’s not what you said though. You said that
I was a “compatriot of that service” when I have no association with it. You
seemed to presuming some kind of involvement with it on my part. I take it that
English isn’t your first language though so perhaps this is
On 01/15/15 13:45, Al Billings wrote:
Insisting that we both can and cannot (at the same time) trust people like
Moxie simply because they live in the USA and the NSA exists is stupid. I
don’t see a suggestion of what jurisdiction the author thinks people can live
within where there won’t
You’re avoiding the question. Please name a nation state in which software can
be produced which isn’t subject to the kind of legal pressures or potential
requirements as the USA when it comes to national security, spying, and the
like.
Russia? Nope. The UK? Nope. Germany? Nope. I could go
Concerning Whatsapp there is a very interesting clue
in a thread on messaging that suggests users will
never know if end-to-end encryption is being used, since
the server decides whether they are allowed to, and
the user is not informed. Knowing the NSA that means
that Whatsapp would never encrypt
41 matches
Mail list logo
