4 ms·

...I'm not understanding your rancor. He(?) said that drawing attention to yourself while vulnerable is risky. Nowhere did he say anything about being less se

...I'm not understanding your rancor. He(?) said that drawing attention to yourself while vulnerable is risky. Nowhere did he say anything about being less secure. Arguably it's the same security with more utility - better to be secure and available only to a few (because of limited advertising) than to be equally secure, and available to none because you got blocked early. Now that last point is definitely arguable, and I think that's what you want to do, but that argument has no connection to the security of the information. Even if you think vocal advertising as an anti-censorship platform is the greater good, it doesn't make the information any more secure. So what am I missing that explains your vehemence?

smokeyj 9y ago
If GP values adoption as the path to censorship resistance - then maybe their product will include backdoors to "stay compliant". For example, when you receive a NSL - do you pull a Lavabit and close shop, or do you backdoor your users? Given the domain of keybase - this questioning is entirely warranted. And while we're here. Cjbprime, do you have any NSL's? And what's your policy on warrant canaries?
- nine_k 9y ago
  Even rumors of presence of a backdoor are extremely bad for a business like that.
- ergothus 9y ago
  > If GP values adoption as the path to censorship resistance - then maybe their product will include backdoors to "stay compliant". It's quite a leap to assume that - the poster said nothing of the sort, and saying "I don't want to get shut down so I can help people against censorship" is very different than "I care more about staying open than helping people against censorship" I'm not saying it's impossible, but I certainly wouldn't assume it
- panzer_wyrm 9y ago
  Lavabit were nobodies. If today github pulls a lavabit it will be noticed.
Qwertious 9y ago
I think the problem is that pushing the anti-censorship angle lets more people avoid censorship today, whereas government censoring of IPFS is a problem for the future. And compromising on the present for fear of a future problem that may or may not actually happen, is a typical consequentialist trap that deontology is essentially designed to fix.

smokeyj 9y ago

If GP values adoption as the path to censorship resistance - then maybe their product will include backdoors to "stay compliant". For example, when you receive a NSL - do you pull a Lavabit and close shop, or do you backdoor your users? Given the domain of keybase - this questioning is entirely warranted. And while we're here. Cjbprime, do you have any NSL's? And what's your policy on warrant canaries?

nine_k 9y ago
Even rumors of presence of a backdoor are extremely bad for a business like that.
ergothus 9y ago
> If GP values adoption as the path to censorship resistance - then maybe their product will include backdoors to "stay compliant". It's quite a leap to assume that - the poster said nothing of the sort, and saying "I don't want to get shut down so I can help people against censorship" is very different than "I care more about staying open than helping people against censorship" I'm not saying it's impossible, but I certainly wouldn't assume it
panzer_wyrm 9y ago
Lavabit were nobodies. If today github pulls a lavabit it will be noticed.

Qwertious 9y ago

I think the problem is that pushing the anti-censorship angle lets more people avoid censorship today, whereas government censoring of IPFS is a problem for the future. And compromising on the present for fear of a future problem that may or may not actually happen, is a typical consequentialist trap that deontology is essentially designed to fix.