4 ms·

Twitter has said this is an early version that shouldn't be trusted yet - https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1656570790039678976?s=20 https://twitter.com/elonm

Twitter has said this is an early version that shouldn't be trusted yet - https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1656570790039678976?s=20 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1656570790039678976?s=20

cmckn 3y ago
Coming from the man behind the FSD “beta”, this is par for the course; but I still find it questionable to turn this sort of feature on in prod (for paying customers, no less) while simultaneously admitting it’s not trustworthy.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Perhaps it depends on what is meant by untrustworthy, but I don't see how it's a downgrade for users. Or are your concerns just PR-related?
  - mjg59 3y ago
    It's an improvement over the status-quo. But given what was communicated before the feature was launched, it's very easy to believe that users might believe that the expectations around privacy and security are stronger than they actually are. Ideally you don't need to put any meaningful trust in the service provider, but in this case you do.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Well, I think if comms have been over-zealous then a correction is appropriate. But either way, this just seems now commentary on their PR chops, rather than anything fundamental about their technical implementation, so I'll colour myself unworried again.
- diebeforei485 3y ago
  It's better than the current product where it's readable in plaintext to Twitter employees, and to some outside contractors as well. For those who already use Twitter DM's (which is a lot of people), this is an improvement.
brenns10 3y ago
It was brought up in the article. Elon only posted that after the security lead for the messaging product publicly tweeted completely wrong info about the status of the promised security audit. Also, trust in the privacy of messages is the entire point of E2E encrypted DMs. It's a pretty dumb strategy to launch that feature and then walk it back with a "oops we're beta testing, don't trust that while privacy thing yet." So either Twitter/Elon has a dumb strategy, or they're (still) making wildly silly blunders as a result of self-inflicted wounds. Either way, pretty compelling arguments to never trust this feature even once they say you can.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
flangola7 3y ago
If a security feature can't be trusted it shouldn't be deployed. Increasing trust is its primary objective. >BigCivilEngineeringFirm says the new road bridge opened yesterday is an early version that shouldn't be trusted yet There are many, many software developers. There are vanishingly few software engineers
- usernew 3y ago
  The primary objective is not what you want it to be or what you think it should be. Elon - through all his career, has demonstrated that the primary objective is to overpromise loudly and underdeliver quietly - creating news, getting attention, being an edgy 14yo trapped in the body of an adult diaper wearer.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
LightBug1 3y ago
I see. FSD for encryption. Got it now. Thanks.

Twitter has said this is an early version that shouldn't be trusted yet - https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1656570790039678976?s=20 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1656570790039678976?s=20

cmckn 3y ago

Coming from the man behind the FSD “beta”, this is par for the course; but I still find it questionable to turn this sort of feature on in prod (for paying customers, no less) while simultaneously admitting it’s not trustworthy.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Perhaps it depends on what is meant by untrustworthy, but I don't see how it's a downgrade for users. Or are your concerns just PR-related?
- mjg59 3y ago
  It's an improvement over the status-quo. But given what was communicated before the feature was launched, it's very easy to believe that users might believe that the expectations around privacy and security are stronger than they actually are. Ideally you don't need to put any meaningful trust in the service provider, but in this case you do.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Well, I think if comms have been over-zealous then a correction is appropriate. But either way, this just seems now commentary on their PR chops, rather than anything fundamental about their technical implementation, so I'll colour myself unworried again.
diebeforei485 3y ago
It's better than the current product where it's readable in plaintext to Twitter employees, and to some outside contractors as well. For those who already use Twitter DM's (which is a lot of people), this is an improvement.

brenns10 3y ago

It was brought up in the article. Elon only posted that after the security lead for the messaging product publicly tweeted completely wrong info about the status of the promised security audit. Also, trust in the privacy of messages is the entire point of E2E encrypted DMs. It's a pretty dumb strategy to launch that feature and then walk it back with a "oops we're beta testing, don't trust that while privacy thing yet." So either Twitter/Elon has a dumb strategy, or they're (still) making wildly silly blunders as a result of self-inflicted wounds. Either way, pretty compelling arguments to never trust this feature even once they say you can.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

flangola7 3y ago

If a security feature can't be trusted it shouldn't be deployed. Increasing trust is its primary objective. >BigCivilEngineeringFirm says the new road bridge opened yesterday is an early version that shouldn't be trusted yet There are many, many software developers. There are vanishingly few software engineers

usernew 3y ago
The primary objective is not what you want it to be or what you think it should be. Elon - through all his career, has demonstrated that the primary objective is to overpromise loudly and underdeliver quietly - creating news, getting attention, being an edgy 14yo trapped in the body of an adult diaper wearer.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

LightBug1 3y ago

I see. FSD for encryption. Got it now. Thanks.