Because it was easy to trust the ostensibly stated reasons for why such a project existed.
The manner in which it was abandoned, however, does not engender any trust. *ASB **http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* <http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker> *Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for the SMB market...* On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Steven Peck <[email protected]> wrote: > TrueCrypt: A project maintained by anonymous people that you trust... > because. Not sure why people can't just trust that these same anonymous > people posted what they wanted and walked away. > > ------------------------------ > Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 11:00:26 -0500 > > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Hmmm.... TrueCrypt > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > > Agreed. I should probably have been more verbose than my "Maybe?" but I > was in the midst of a home repair project. ;) > > > - WJR > [image: See-no-evil monkey][image: Hear-no-evil monkey][image: > Speak-no-evil monkey] > > > On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Ben Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 5:46 PM, William Robbins <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Maybe? > http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/06/01/1922248/the-sudden-policy-change-in-truecrypt-explained > > Slashdot is linking to a blog that's quoting Twitter posts that > appear to be incoherent speculation. (I think. It's hard to tell with > Twitter.) > > Anyway, as I read it, the speculation is that this is a warrant > canary. Except... it can't be. > > The issue arises because the gov't can serve you with a warrant or > other legal instrument that includes a gag order preventing you from > even talking about it. > > A "warrant canary" is some thing you preemptively maintain as a > countermeasure to such. You announce you're maintaining this canary. > Then, if you get served, you stop maintaining the canary. The classic > example is a daily announcement "We haven't received a warrant". The > day you don't post that, everyone knows you just got served.[1] > > Suddenly yanking the project, without explanation or previously > established meaning, is not a warrant canary. It might be what > happens when you don't *have* a warrant canary, but that's the exact > opposite meaning of the term. > > So... <shrug> > > -- Ben > > [1] The theory is, the gov't can prevent you from saying "I've been > served with a warrant", but can't force you to speak untruth. Whether > that actually works in reality, I have no idea. > > > >
