5 ms·
Hmmm, the implication is that the security you offer isn't only bad but so bad it's easier to circumvent than no security at all, right?
by sausagefeet 14y ago
Hmmm, the implication is that the security you offer isn't only bad but so bad it's easier to circumvent than no security at all, right?
- borski 14y agoWow - what an unnecessarily personal and derisive attack. No. It's simply a memorable name that allows us to play to the idea of Tinfoil hats protecting you - it's playful. The MIT study's results weren't relevant to why we named it that - it was the fact that it was even studied at all that's more to blame. For the record, the security we offer is top notch.
- dcx 14y agoI'm really hoping this doesn't come out as an attack too, but instead as an extra datapoint for your business. I agree with OP's perception. When I hear the phrase "tinfoil security" the word associations that come to mind don't really sell security. Tinfoil is just not a substance you think of as being thick and defensive. I do like the playfulness of it, but I'm not sure that's a quality that customers can draw brand value from, in the context of keeping their stuff secure. But either way - the tech industry isn't (yet) at the point where brand names make much of a difference to the bottom line. Branding hits your bottom line at the supermarket when I'm buying detergent from you, but not so much when I'm looking for the best search engine/maps product/security offering. :)
- sausagefeet 14y agoChill out, it wasn't an attack, it was just the logical extrapolation of the study you mentioned to your company. For the record I know nothing about your company other than you based its name off a study about something that not only doesn't work but has the opposite intended effect.
- ktizo 14y agothe security we offer is top notch. That's what you would say... if you were a trans-dimensional lizard from space.