On 19 November 2014 16:15, ck raju <[email protected]> wrote: > The scenario is like having Bill Gates in bathroom who tells the client > that all the windows and doors have been made secure. As long as we have > proprietary operating systems - which can see original documents before > [and proprietary applications]
> and after encrypting - the claims of secure communication should remain > under suspicion. > > On 19 November 2014 15:40, Vickram Crishna <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 19, 2014 1:49 PM, "Pirate Praveen" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Today we're excited to publicly announce a partnership with WhatsApp, >> > the most popular messaging app in the world, to incorporate the >> > TextSecure protocol into their clients and provide end-to-end encryption >> > for their users by default. >> >> Delighted. The discussion at the end centers around whether some sneaky >> code can be inserted (or already exists) in the app (proprietary code) that >> enables the decoded message to be read by some intercept. >> >> To my mind, it is probably possible to send off a message via some third >> party app that can be compared with the same message sent via Whatsapp to >> verify for any extra baggage. The possibility alone makes the likelihood of >> such a botcode dim. >> >> > >> > https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp/ >> > >> > This is really a great news for all privacy advocates. I never thought >> > this could happen. I suppose they are forced to respond to the public >> > demand for better privacy. >> >> I wish there was such a demand. Most people are blissfully unaware of the >> potential (in many cases around the world, all too real) risks of >> communication through digital media. The challenges of unbridled commerce >> with hawk-dominated democracy in nation after nation means the citizenry >> really don't know what to expect, but both Wikileaks and Snowden have >> demonstrated that it's probably not good. >> >> Such initiatives need to be applauded. If communication media vendors >> sense that privacy enhancement is a market need (much like Jobs deciding >> that x or y feature of iPads was a market need even before launching the >> product), it is a bold step to protect users even before they wake up. To >> go further, it becomes the basis for anyone writing code to decide whether >> she wants to be responsible for some intrusive thing or the other to enter >> the realm of human intercourse. >> >> This could happen as an initiative from employees, employers or >> independent vendors, even before it appeared as a pushback from the market. >> Seen in that light, it is always better to meet a demand before it is >> expressed by walking out the door. The people who today are successful in >> marketing their communication media goes and services need not be viewed in >> a negative light, even if they persist in building them on proprietary >> code. That change will, imho, be a feature or aspect of recognizing human >> dignity, which we see in many ways, even really super duper paying jobs >> dispense with oftentimes, never mind the hoi polloi, and not only in the >> corporate world. The fact is, these vendors have done a good job in >> connecting people, and need to do a better job in connecting people >> responsibly. >> >> Of course, privacy protection and open code practices may be chicken and >> egg, but the former builds on grabbing an opportunity, loads of synergy. >> Slogging against such entrenched forces is more like meeting a threat. >> >> Vickram >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > network mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> network mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in >> >> > > > -- > CK Raju > > > > > > -- CK Raju
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
