Daniel Colascione: > On 2/5/2013 11:11 AM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote: >> Brian Conley: >>> Apparently Silent Circle is also proposing such a feature now. >> >> Such a feature makes sense when we consider the pervasive world of >> targeted attacks. If you compromise say, my email client today, you may >> get years of email. If you compromise my Pond client today, you get a >> weeks worth of messages. Such a feature is something I think is useful >> and I agreed to it when I started using Pond. > > Nobody is objecting to a feature that deletes certain messages after a > configurable time. I agree that it mitigates some attacks (although less than > one might think, if the mail account isn't tamper-evident), and timed message > deletion has other benefits besides. Many MUAs provide this feature, often > through "filters" or "rules" interfaces.
I think that some people do object to such a feature. It makes sense - such a feature is pretty much an open research question... > > Rich's objection, which I share, is that Wickr (and apparently, Silent Circle) > attempt to impose this policy on users without allowing them to make an > independent choice. > I agree that using closed source software with a software as a service model might really suck. Free software for freedom, right? > Is your position that timed message deletion is valuable only if it is > sender-selected and MUA-enforced? Nope. My position is that there is more than a binary choice and more than a receiver is the attacker at all times way of thinking about the problem. All the best, Jake -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
