3 ms·
In the general, yes, we're talking about privacy, but specifically, no, it's not what we're talking about -- we're specifically talking about Skype's need to be
by dimino 10y ago
In the general, yes, we're talking about privacy, but specifically, no, it's not what we're talking about -- we're specifically talking about Skype's need to be completely private, and how if it's not, we're somehow losing the battle for privacy everywhere, as if Skype's insecurity will make people unable to use PGP or some other good encryption.
Just because I can post a bulletin on a public poster board, doesn't mean I can't also write a private letter. There are no "weak" people here, and plenty of better battlefronts to wage this war. Every single messaging platform doesn't need to be completely secure, that's absurd.
Just to back up a second, what is it you think I'm advocating here? That we not have privacy??
- mixmastamyk 10y agoNo, but the freedom to have "no privacy" is not a problem anyone has. There is no privacy online and no alternatives to Skype that we can get anyone to use.
- dimino 10y ago> There is no privacy online and no alternatives to Skype that we can get anyone to use. WhatsApp is used by 1 billion people worldwide, so no, this is completely false.
- mixmastamyk 10y agoOh it's completely false because you found an exception, haha.
- dimino 10y agoYes, that's correct. You claimed there were no black sheep, and I found a black sheep.