6 ms·
That's so unbelievably false it makes me sad that you, a respected member of the security community, are touting it like a clear and present danger to anyone re
by dimino 10y ago
That's so unbelievably false it makes me sad that you, a respected member of the security community, are touting it like a clear and present danger to anyone reading this site.
You stop.
Edit: I'm being absolutist because it's easier, rhetorically, but if I have to be explicit, I'm saying that the realistic occurrence of murder as a result of privacy tool usage, one way or another, is low, to understate things. To talk about murder as a problem in cybersecurity is like talking about meteors hitting car windshields.
- tptacek 10y agoAre you suggesting it's "unbelievably false" that broken privacy tools have gotten people tortured and killed? A lot of us in the "security community" know this to be true, with specifics.
- dimino 10y agoI'm suggesting it's not worth talking about seriously for a toy like in the submission.
- throwanem 10y agoThere's a paid subscription option, and its developer's comments elsewhere in this thread very strongly suggest people are using it in a serious fashion. If you're thinking of it as a toy, your threat model is bogus.
- dimino 10y agoIt's a toy, regardless of what the developer says.
- throwanem 10y agoBut not regardless of how people use it.
- dimino 10y agoYes, actually, regardless of how people use it. You can't stop people from using the wrong tools.
- throwanem 10y agoYou can, and I think ethically must, take responsibility for the fashion in which people use the tool you make. If you intend it to be only a toy, then you can, and I think ethically must, make that clear. If people persist despite all warnings in using it in ways that might cause them harm, then you can, and I think ethically must, cease to make it available. To do otherwise is dangerously cavalier at best, and incompatible with the minimal degree of responsibility which I would require of an employee or a colleague. Perhaps you feel otherwise. That's your prerogative. But, if so, I do hope, for the sake of any users you might have, that you aren't in a position to make similar decisions yourself.
- dimino 10y agoI didn't write it, you're going to have to take that up with the author, on what his intended use case was for his website. Sounds like he did what you said, anyway.
- throwanem 10y agoI'm not talking about 'StavrosK's service here. I'm talking about your evaluation of threat models, which seems to include a great big exception around "well, if people aren't using it the way I want them to, then to hell with them."
- dimino 10y agoWell yeah, actually that's how threat models are built -- you can't protect users from themselves, if a user wants to store all their passwords in a greeting card website, in the little "special message to your loved one" field, there's realistically no way you can stop them. Your greeting card website's threat model doesn't include this.
- tptacek 10y agoYou might try re-reading my comment, all the way through.
- dimino 10y agoI don't find this to be a comment in the spirit of HN, yet again, from you.
- hueving 10y ago>To talk about murder as a problem in cybersecurity is like talking about meteors hitting car windshields. Have meteors hit car windshields? Because people have died by not correctly securing sensitive information. Read this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13... Then consider that 'coming out of the closet' would be a very viable use of a site like this if someone is gay and they live in an oppressive country.
- dimino 10y agoYes, meteors have hit cars windshields, a Google will reveal.