Nobody said "give up".
Indeed. You understand the word "subliminal", don't you? And Abdullah
actually answered: "I might have come across a bit discouraging in my attempt
to 'be on the safe side'":
https://trisquel.info/forum/there-perfect-method-guard-our-communication?page=2#comment-128200
heyjoe is the person who showed something practical in investigating and
improving security of web browsers. What did you do about it?
I actually wrote two scripts to help you (whereas your repository had
nothing). Remember? Here they are:
https://trisquel.info/forum/web-browser?page=5#comment-127495
You criticized him from the very beginning (...) Would you rather prefer the
info about browsers not to have been shared, so everyone can live an illusory
life in the fancy words of ideologies and motivational talkers?
My first reply starts with "heyjoe raises interesting privacy concerns" and I
have repeated that several times:
https://trisquel.info/forum/web-browser#comment-126105
posted various inflammatory, confusing and time wasting off-topic remarks
I disagree and let anybody who cares (probably nobody) judge. And you
started the confusion, pretending that freedom 0 has to do with privacy. The
next two sentences on that same first post are: "It is unfortunate he
pretends they are freedom issues. They are not".
at the end you started licensing your forum posts.
Not the posts by themselves but the code in them. Because I want it to be
free software, as I explained there:
https://trisquel.info/forum/web-browser?page=5#comment-127495
Do you really think what you did helps anyone to improve the security of
their communication?
Summed up, I wrote that For "99.9999% of the people (...) GPG on a free
software operating system (such as Trisquel) is apparently sufficient or more
than sufficient":
https://trisquel.info/forum/there-perfect-method-guard-our-communication?page=1#comment-128158
In contrast, the only "advice" from you is "create your own network,
completely isolated from the Internet":
https://trisquel.info/forum/there-perfect-method-guard-our-communication#comment-127969
heyjoe also opened a thread to discuss ideas about a new network model. What
did you do? - You posted in it just to explain that because it doesn't fit in
what you know, it is inefficient, anti-ecological and what not, when the
whole idea was to discuss a possible new approach, share other ideas etc.
Can't the discussion mention that your solution is inefficient and
anti-ecological? It is actually an euphemism to state it in those terms. I
explained why, doing the math:
https://trisquel.info/forum/thoughts-about-new-type-network#comment-126583
Just look at your only post in that thread and how "motivating" it is.
It replied "No, it is not" to you writing that "any attempt to provide
FSF-freedom at software level is really putting flowers on the black box and
saying 'as long as there are these flowers on the blackbox, it is safe'":
https://trisquel.info/forum/freedom-security-technology-what-can-we-do#comment-127801
So, yes, my post is motivating. In reply to yours, which is demotivating
(and again confusing freedom with feature, security in that case).
As Abdullah explained - creating a false sense of security and safety is much
more dangerous than facing actual insecurity.
I agree with that.
