Patrick Henry wrote:
[About ZKS being mentioned in the WSJ]
> One can only wonder where we're headed when cypherpunkery gets
> this mainstream.
I don't know where we are headed. But I do know where we are: Cypherpunks is
about strong crypto, open source, and peer review of that source. With the
combination hopefully being of sufficient strength to result in a reasonable
likelihood of keeping semi-serious attackers at bay. Oh, and of course there
has to be an absence of a "just trust us to keep your privacy for you"
component. The current implementation of Freedom falls well short of most of
these requirements.
For crying out loud, currently Freedom is based on a promise to "just trust
us to not keep a record which tokens link to which nyms". (Unless you pay
cash, etc).
Sure, ZKS keeps assuring us how nice things will be in the future. Perhaps
they will be. Perhaps they won't. At the moment, Freedom is anything but a
product that meets Cypherpunks standards. Except perhaps Cypherpunks(TM)
brand rub-off requirements.
Last year, ZKS' own PR department slammed their competitors in a post to
this very list for not releasing source and enabling review of their
products. When asked repeatedly about source, ZKS has promised much, but
delivered nothing except vague promises to be fulfilled at some unspecified
time in the future. ZKS has some very cluefull people on board, but that
alone does not secure software make. The proof is in the implementation. And
frankly, one thing is clear even absent source: the current implementation
is non-convincing.
Present-day Freedom simply isn't of any significant interest to many privacy
conscious customers. I suspect ZKS' sales figures are reflecting that fact.
--Lucky "where is the source"? Green
