4 ms·
rdl is saying that they don't want to solve that use case at all. It's a bit hard to parse but if you just pay attention the "aimed at business/group use" phras
by benatkin 14y ago
rdl is saying that they don't want to solve that use case at all. It's a bit hard to parse but if you just pay attention the "aimed at business/group use" phrase and ignore the rest of it, it's clear. It's a single sentence that would be better as two sentences.
- rdl 14y agoYes. There are better privacy options out there for individuals -- on price point alone. We're also a US company with all US citizens working here, so if someone came to us with a US-legal order, we'd have to comply. Have been considering something like the rsync.net NSL canary, though, and would push for user rights as hard as we could. We've been thinking about how to handle the "company has a bunch of users, a few of them go to China sometimes" problem. That we might actually try to solve (by letting you have a private IP and testing against the firewalls out there, which are getting pretty sophisticated). Probably a few months away.
- shabble 14y agoBut what about us truly paranoid? You should look into getting together with some sort of independent offshore hosting facility and running some remix overlay network services. I could totally put you in touch with this guy... Seriously though, congrats on the launch.
- rdl 14y agoWe're actually looking at hardware tamper-resistance (HSMs, Intel TXT, etc.) We got started looking at how to make "trusted clouds", using DRM/tamper-resistant tech. The problem is building that in a way that anyone could actually adopt is really hard, so we figured we'd work on some related, easier problems, where we could build some of that tech internally and use it where it makes sense, first (key management, etc.)