3 ms·

Hey, advisor for a non-signal E2EE chat service here that also benefited from the Open Technology Fund. I recognize that you'd basically just be taking my word

Hey, advisor for a non-signal E2EE chat service here that also benefited from the Open Technology Fund. I recognize that you'd basically just be taking my word for it, but literally all they did was take an application from us, approve it after doing their diligence, and paying Cure53 for an assessment. There was no other involvement or, as you're implying, interference. Just my experience, but I'm publishing this because the fud breaks my heart. OTF does good work.

vetinari 6y ago
It could be, I believe what you say is very much the truth. But that doesn't really matter. Even by doing that. these two are associated. Imagine, if there was a non-profit, that took money from some Kremlin or Fobidden City development program, using exactly the same procedure. Would be that non-profit trustworthy going forward, given their association? So this one is the same, just with red and white stripes. Definitely not FUD, they did take money from US Gov agency.
- eganist 6y ago
  > Would be that non-profit trustworthy going forward, given their association? Kinda depends. If the money was authorized by a parliamentary body (with clear legal text around who's receiving funding, what the conditions are, etc), I wouldn't be so worried. If it was authorized by an executive as a disbursement from a random pot, I'd be more worried about strings. Ergo my comfort with US congressional funding v. a DARPA grant or In-Q-Tel investment.
- approxim8ion 6y ago
  >Would be that non-profit trustworthy going forward, given their association? As long as the product is proprietary, no.
mahogany 6y ago
In my experience, most people who project nefarious intentions on the government have no experience working with or within the government. The government, after all, is a big thing with no unified goals or intentions. But for some reason, for some people, 'government' always means 'bad'.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  To be fair it usually is bad when it comes to matters of privacy and being open and honest about said privacy.
  - Forbo 6y ago
    Governments gave us things like GDPR and HIPAA.

vetinari 6y ago

It could be, I believe what you say is very much the truth. But that doesn't really matter. Even by doing that. these two are associated. Imagine, if there was a non-profit, that took money from some Kremlin or Fobidden City development program, using exactly the same procedure. Would be that non-profit trustworthy going forward, given their association? So this one is the same, just with red and white stripes. Definitely not FUD, they did take money from US Gov agency.

eganist 6y ago
> Would be that non-profit trustworthy going forward, given their association? Kinda depends. If the money was authorized by a parliamentary body (with clear legal text around who's receiving funding, what the conditions are, etc), I wouldn't be so worried. If it was authorized by an executive as a disbursement from a random pot, I'd be more worried about strings. Ergo my comfort with US congressional funding v. a DARPA grant or In-Q-Tel investment.
approxim8ion 6y ago
>Would be that non-profit trustworthy going forward, given their association? As long as the product is proprietary, no.

mahogany 6y ago

In my experience, most people who project nefarious intentions on the government have no experience working with or within the government. The government, after all, is a big thing with no unified goals or intentions. But for some reason, for some people, 'government' always means 'bad'.

stjohnswarts 6y ago
To be fair it usually is bad when it comes to matters of privacy and being open and honest about said privacy.
- Forbo 6y ago
  Governments gave us things like GDPR and HIPAA.