3 ms·
It's not a backdoor, but it's not "not a protocol flaw" either. If The Guardian had reported it as a flaw in the protocol, would you have been okay with the cov
by Ar-Curunir 10y ago
It's not a backdoor, but it's not "not a protocol flaw" either. If The Guardian had reported it as a flaw in the protocol, would you have been okay with the coverage?
- tptacek 10y agoNo. That's what their current reporting says, too. The reporting challenge here is the same as vaccine reporting: primum non nocere.
- Ar-Curunir 10y agoBut the fact is that it is a protocol flaw (deliberate choice or not). The Guardian should have inserted caveats stating that this flaw is highly unlikely to have been exploited, but I would argue that not telling the people of the flaw is as bad as telling them that it's backdoored.
- tptacek 10y agoAnd a small number of people really are allergic to vaccines. Primum non nocere. The Guardian failed, badly, and needs to retract loudly.
- yarou 10y agoEven if they retracted, isn't the damage already done? The problem with yellow journalism and sensationalism is that purportedly respectable institutions spin narratives that are dangerous. I'd be curious to see some empirical data on the impact of this story, i.e. how many users switched from WhatsApp to Signal or vanilla SMS.