3 ms·
I think a more likely scenario might be that control of the project was seized, and the final release and statements were not from the developers, or they were
by jaawn 11y ago
I think a more likely scenario might be that control of the project was seized, and the final release and statements were not from the developers, or they were issued by the developers under duress. It seems more like an agency wanted to shut it down because it worked too well.
- nickysielicki 11y agoI refuse to believe we live in that unfree of a society. I know that we have FISA courts and so forth, but that's still a tier below preventing someone from continuing to publish their computer code. All the 90's cases surrounding cryptography as armaments cemented the notion that it's protected under the first amendment.
- ionised 11y ago> I refuse to believe we live in that unfree of a society. I could never believe otherwise. Not after everything I've learned in my time on this rock.
- jaawn 11y agoI think our society is not this unfree provided you are willing to fight. Several government agencies have the power through fear to do something like this when they deem it necessary, and a very small dev team with no resources or company lawyers to back them up would be an easy target. Sure, fighting such a seizure might yield success, but it is a lot of time and energy and money to devote to a cause. This is the same reason why many people settle lawsuits out of court instead of seeing them through.