4 ms·
You're making the mistake a lot of people make where you assume if one side is a thing a competing thing must be equally valid. These aren't two people that ar
by djcapelis 10y ago
You're making the mistake a lot of people make where you assume if one side is a thing a competing thing must be equally valid. These aren't two people that are equally well respected or with equal track records. One of them has years of experience developing secure software, the other has years of experience hacking on bullshit snake oil for the purpose of selling it to users.
This is not a "the truth must be somewhere in the middle both sides are super great" narrative.
- wolfgke 10y ago> You're making the mistake a lot of people make where you assume if one side is a thing a competing thing must be equally valid. I am rather a "if there are two different opinions at least one side must be wrong" kind of guy and cannot even imagine how one might come up with a "the truth must be somewhere in the middle". If this were true, it would simply mean that both sides were wrong from beginning on.
- ThrustVectoring 10y agoThere are degrees of wrongness - it's not a black-and-white thing. Suppose two people are arguing over what causes robberies in downtown Chicago: person A blames drug use, while person B thinks it's poverty. The actual truth is some sort of mix of both, along with other factors not mentioned.
- blowski 10y agoNope, I was just saying that I don't have anywhere near the level of knowledge to say which of either them is more right than the other. I just find it fascinating when two people who are good at what they do have a debate.
- wang_li 10y ago> One of them has years of experience developing secure software, the other has years of experience hacking on bullshit snake oil for the purpose of selling it to users. Google has done more to shit up the web than any other entity ever. Now I know tons of people are going to say "but Google provides fast DNS, they provide free CDN services, they provide analytics for website owners, etc." Sure they do all that, but it's because every one of those things gives them the ability to track users all over the internet. And as long as Google is not going to take responsibility for their programs (the explicit warranty disclaimers in their EULA), anything they say about "shipping a secure browser" is bullshit. Ultimately the warranty disclaimer tells us that they don't believe that their product is secure or reliable.
- blowski 10y agoJustin Schuh is not the same as Google (even though he works there), and privacy is not the same as security.
- wang_li 10y ago>Justin Schuh is not the same as Google (even though he works there) Does Justin Schuh write and ship a web browser that isn't Chrome? > privacy is not the same as security. If someone says "Here's my program, it's great, it's shiny, it's awesome, it's wonderful, it'll cure acne, and feed teh poor. But then tells me that if it does none of those things, it's not their problem." Then I'm not going to believe their blah blah blah as long as they retain their disclaimer. If Google wants to step up and start writing checks every time a defect in their software causes someone else money, then I'll start listening and trusting their statements.
- tptacek 10y agoJustin Schuh is security for Chrome. If you find a software security person anywhere in the industry who believes that users are safer with Safari, Firefox, or Internet Explorer, let me know about them. "Switch to Chrome" is pretty close to the first bit of endpoint advice most security people provide in 2016. That doesn't make Chrome the best browser or apologize for any of the things Google has done to make the web more proprietary or less reliable. But none of those things are Justin's job: Justin's job is to solve the single hardest problem in software security (securing the world's most complicated inner platform), and by pretty much all accounts anywhere, the Chrome team has done an amazing job of it.