Greg, much, much appreciated. Its now clearer I get bounced on email when I initiate an post. Otherwise OK. It somewhat bizarre :-).
Thank you J. On Thursday, 6 December 2018 18:13:45 UTC+1, Greg Davis wrote: > > Josiah, > I did not get your original message on security. I'm using Gmail, checked > SPAM and TRASH and it was not in either. These are your messages, as of > 11:35am this morning, that I had received: > > [tw5] Re: TiddlyWiki at the local Community College 6:38am > > [tw5] Re: I love TiddlyWiki because... 7:17am > > [tw5] Re: Favicon is not displayed 9:36am > > [tw5] Re: [I'd like to TALK] ... About Security 9:43am > > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 9:43:04 AM UTC-5, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: >> >> For email users of this list ... I just wrote a post ... Could one of you >> let me know if you got this message ... >> >> (Web users of the group can ignore this post) >> >> J. >> >> @TiddlyTweeter wrote: >>> >>> I'm getting very interested in TW as a potentially secure way to chat, >>> and publish material that is ONLY for selected users/participants. >>> >>> Part of the background is that its becoming clearer that large online >>> services are NOT, ultimately, able to secure conversation. I spent the last >>> two days sorting out the aftermath for me of the Quora meltdown ... >>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2018/12/04/quora-hacked-what-happened-what-data-was-stolen-and-what-do-100-million-users-need-to-do-next/ >>> >>> The problem is those types of system are owned and run at huge scale by >>> far off companies and you don't know what they are doing. In fact THEY >>> often don't know what they are doing till its too late. This just is the >>> latest of a long line of serious cloud hacks. I basically don't trust them >>> now. The hassle re-setting everything after an attack is both a PITA and >>> very worrying. Identity theft can be a very complicated thing to sort out. >>> >>> TW seems interesting if you can add *two step verification*. >>> >>> Practically I'm very interested in being able to run a TW online just >>> for conversation with ONE person ... i.e. One Wiki Per Converser. In this >>> way we can chat AND in teaching I can show all but only what is needed. >>> This is appropriate for how I work, which is all one-on-one. More >>> collectivist security models interest me too, but the simple >>> person-to-person is a specific interest. And I think it may be simpler to >>> establish really robustly? >>> >>> This is just one set of thoughts. My main concern is: can TW be >>> maximally secure? I think, if it could be demonstrably so on-line it could >>> be a USP for it. >>> >>> Any comments welcomed ... >>> >>> These are just early thoughts >>> Josiah >>> >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/586f9278-00fa-4748-a29c-1c418543f227%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
