Anon wrote:
> The well intentioned kindness and patience which cypherpunks have
> expressed towards ZKS is undoubtedly a major contributing factor for
> why so little has been done to address the privacy lapses which Tim
> May describes. Cypherpunks have themselves to blame for allowing this
> to happen.
ZKS has some very capable, well-known Cypherpunks on staff. It therefore was
not unreasonable to presume the product, once shipping, would live up to
basic Cypherpunks standards. Now that a product providing for "trust
us"-grade security at best has been shipping for 6 months, we know that our
hopes and expectations have not been met. ZKS' product as it stands today is
simply not very interesting and not worth spending much cycles on. Which
includes spending cycles on criticizing it.
> Criticizing the company is not disloyal. Turning up the heat when they
> fail to follow through on their promises is not unfriendly. Cypherpunks
> are actually helping their friends and allies within ZKS when they plainly
> state how unacceptable is the current state of the product with regard
> to privacy. Only when the company senses that cypherpunks are losing
> patience, that they are in danger of seeing articles appear in Wired
> or the Times saying that the company's dedication to privacy is being
> questioned, will they increase the priority of fixing these problems.
I of course do not doubt the good intentions of the long-term Cypherpunks
subscribers working at ZKS. But has become clear to most knowledgeable
observers that ZKS' current product does not live up to the basic principles
that need to be adhered to by such security and privacy sensitive software.
If some day ZKS' were to deliver a product worth a closer look, I am sure
the Cypherpunks community will spend the time to look at it. Until then,
even spending the time I spent writing this email about Freedom(TM) is
difficult to justify.
--Lucky "six months and still no source"? Green
