On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Douglas Lucas <[email protected]> wrote: > Can Silent Circle promoters explain why Zimmerman is excused from > Kerckhoffs's principle? > > Is it because something unverifiable is allegedly better than nothing? > Even if we had divine knowledge to tell us Silent Circle is secure, > isn't it an overriding problem to encourage lock-in of closed source > being acceptable for something as common as text-messaging?
Even if it were acceptable because "we" trust the source this time that won't be clear to the public— and the next unscrupulous sake oil salesman who comes around using identical marketing will look just as trustworthy to the public. Accordingly, this work still demands a strong negative reaction if we're to continue to established in people's mind that snazzy names, buzzword technobable, and big claims do not show security products to be trustworthy: Only independent auditing and open code do. -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
