3 ms·
> Can we actually know this? > Can you ever actually prove a negative? Does that mean that you agree that we can't know the extent to which things have been e
by ifyoubuildit 5y ago
> Can we actually know this?
> Can you ever actually prove a negative?
Does that mean that you agree that we can't know the extent to which things have been exposed? Cause that's part of my point. Of course you can flip that around and say well you can't prove that nobody compromised your local machine, but one of those things is open to attack from many orders of magnitude more attackers by virtue of being on the open internet and in a physical space that you don't control.
> You're propping up a straw man using a hyperbole.
You're cooking up a tasty word salad there, chef. Can you give me a little more meat here? I don't quite follow. Have you never heard people say that you shouldn't write an email or send a picture that you wouldn't want to see in the newspaper? Its a similar concept. Once you send something out over the wire, your power to make decisions over what's done with it is gone. You have to hope that whatever was listening on the wire is (and will continue to be) benevolent. How do straw men and hyperbole apply here?
> The most difficult factor to wrangle is human psychology. Without intervention, phishing attacks just work. People re-use passwords. People switch from redox1 to 1redsox1 when forced to change them. They do this all to avoid having to think about it.
> The entire point of password managers is to mitigate this.
I agree. That's part of why I use a password manager, and recommend that others do so too. We just disagree on whether or not its advisable to cede control over that kind of tool to a third party.
It feels a lot like the argument that your money is safer in a bank than in your mattress, which is an argument I agree with. Except replace all the banking regulations and security with a ToS that can change anytime and emails about how very deeply we care about your security. I'll keep my cash in my safe at home in that scenario. Maybe there are some people who'd still be better off using that bank. I wouldn't feel good giving that recommendation though.
- chefandy 5y agoYou're just being obstinate and not even addressing the points I brought up— just vaguely poking at the premises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I have better things to do.
- ifyoubuildit 5y agoI know what a straw man is, but you just naming the term doesn't constitute an argument. Maybe a more clever person than myself could have intuited what you believed was an example of one, but I couldn't. Russell's teapot is a new one to me. It seems you're position (correct me if I've misunderstood, or don't since you don't seem interested in the conversation anymore) that since we don't have definitive proof that we can't trust these third parties, it's wrong to distrust them. I'm too paranoid to buy that. If I can't verify, then I don't trust. Good luck with your better things.