Nadim I understand your position, but actions like this website won't help your cause.
Can you understand how actions like setting up this web site might be viewed as a way to call attention to oneself, rather than champion the (respectable) ideals of the open source movement? -- Greg Norcie ([email protected]) GPG key: 0x1B873635 On 11/6/12 1:53 PM, Nadim Kobeissi wrote: > Ali, > The issue is trust. Security software verifiability should not have to > depend on Silent Circle (or who they hire to audit, for example Veracode.) > > > NK > > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Ali-Reza Anghaie <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Nobody would dispute that - that's not quite the same thing as FOSS > default positions or some of the other criticisms. > > For example, I'd contend a paid Veracode audit would in all > likelihood be better than any typical FOSS audit. Had they done that > (heck, they might have but I doubt it) and still announced the > intent of opening the codebase - I wager that would not have stopped > the criticism. > > It appears to be a deep-seeded cultural divide more than any of the > other factors combined. > > -Al > > > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Yosem Companys > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Security audits are always important, especially when people's > lives are at risk. > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Nadim Kobeissi <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi Ali, > There is no "agenda," and there needn't be one if you are to > critique security software. No need to be so aggressive. > My qualms against Silent Circle are detailed > here: http://log.nadim.cc/?p=89 > > > NK > > > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ali-Reza Anghaie > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Seriously - what's your agenda? > > Where are the domains for the other tens of providers > who charge arms and legs based on closed protocols even? > > What's the nit with Silent Circle specifically? Because > they're accessible? Because it's easier to use? Because > the founders have good track records of standing up to > Government too? > > Being absolutist about everything isn't helping anyone > who ~needs~ it - it's a privilege of the "haves" that we > can have these conversations over and over again. > > Shouldn't we have taken the "fight" to carriers, Apple > iOS T&Cs, etc. harder and longer ago? And why do we keep > expecting private entities to fight our Government > battles for us? It's a losing proposition and increases > the costs-per-individual to untenable levels when we mix > absolutely all their enterprise with civil liberty issues. > > There has got to be a better way than this ridiculous > trolling and bickering. Someone? Anyone? > > Again, seriously, what's the agenda against Silent > Circle specifically? > > -Ali > > > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Nadim Kobeissi > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > http://issilentcircleopensourceyet.com/ > > NK > > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password > at: > > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > > > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > > > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > > > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > > > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > > > > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
