Hi, Daniel Kahn Gillmor (2020-10-27):
> On Mon 2020-10-26 08:39:06 +0100, intrigeri wrote: >> At this point of the conversation, I would recommend users for whom >> this matters a lot to install their preferred steganography tool >> by hand (without Additional Software) whenever they need it, so that >> it leaves no traces and such attackers are left with no clue >> about potential steganography usage, and which tool could be used. > > A counterargument would be that if tails were to include it by default, > any tails user *could* use it without needing to do any extra work (or > even to figure out how to install it by hand "so that it leaves no > traces", which is not necessarily a simple job, as i'm sure everyone who > works on Tails knows). I would fully agree with this line of reasoning if the requested tool (steghide) provided a nice UX for folks who are not particularly tech-savvy. Unfortunately, it's a CLI tool. So it seems to me that using steghide is harder, for most of our target users, than installing it by hand (which one can do without using a terminal). > I'm a bit dubious about steganography anyway, so i don't really have a > side i'm strongly aligned with in this question. But i'll say that the > thing that Tails has done (and continues to do) is to make an OS where > the user *doesn't* need to know all kinds of fancy details to hide their > tracks. That's a real contribution, and if we think that steganography > is a useful part of that toolkit, then it seems like having sensible, > usable steganography tools easily available is sort of in the same vein. This makes sense to me. I would certainly approach this conversation very differently if a *usable* steganography tool is proposed :) Cheers! _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to [email protected].
