2013-07-12 08:54, Brian Conley:
> +1 > On Jul 11, 2013 11:48 PM, "Douglas Lucas" <[email protected] [2]> wrote: > >> I can't wait until S̶i̶l̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶C̶i̶r̶c̶l̶e̶ Heml.is is open source! >> >> On 07/12/2013 01:29 AM, phryk wrote: >> > On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:09:04 -0700 >> > Brian Conley <[email protected] [1]> wrote: >> > >> >> If it's not open source we aren't trusting it, so wait and see. >> > >> > My thought exactly. The companies involved in PRISM denied giving the >> > feds access to their data, so why won't some guys I've never even heard >> > of before not do the same? >> > >> > […] > >>> >>> The Aljazeera post also hails it as "the first secure mobile messaging >> > system.". Did I miss something there? What about XMPP+OTR? What about >> > Whispers' TextSecure? Another simple question is: how many of these "secure apps" do we need? I understand the need for diversity, really, but when we already have a bunch of different solutions (TextSecure, XMPP+OTR, mail+PGP), can't we build on something pre-existing rather than start from scratch everytime? Doesn't that add a risk of baking more homemade crypto and all the possible errors that come with that? It's obviously a hard line to tread between diversity and fragmentation, but it feels like more apps are being announced every other week. The situation gives me this feeling that this is the moment to sell your new super-privacy-enhanced app now the market is sensitive to the argument and everyone is coming out of the woods to do so. Or maybe I'm just a bit cynical today. axel > Links: ------ [1] mailto:[email protected] [2] mailto:[email protected]
-- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at [email protected] or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
