On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 15:40 -0800, Erica Frank wrote: > I don't see it as security, but a mild form of privacy--anyone who > wants to, can see the obscured content (obscured, not locked)
Yes, the fact that this potential feature is being lumped in with the concept of 'security' levels is misleading and unhelpful. Nobody is wanting it to provide security, we all know it won't do that, that's not why we want it. Any reply which says "This won't provide any real security" is not actually addressing the reasons for this feature request. Honest :) > I might describe it a kind of super-cut-tag: "only readable if you > click here," where "click here" means "sign up for the service." > > Cut tags aren't for security; they're a way to keep distractions from > people who don't care to read what's inside right now. "Lock to > logged-in users only" is a variation on that. Neat. Well analogied :) _______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
