6 ms·

This guy's credibility was shot down pretty well here on HN and elsewhere earlier in the week. I wouldn't place much credence into anything he says.

Kiro 13y ago
Care to elaborate?
epo 13y ago
This guy is keeping the story on the news agenda loud and clear. I'm sure he doesn't care about the opinion of some Aspieish idiots on a discussion group. What's your credibility?
- kamjam 13y ago
  This story was originally published on Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:44 PM EDT To be fair, the article is from 3 days ago. More likely someone just posted the link on HN. Also, it's not the guys fault is NBC News are a little slow in reporting a story...
  - uxp 13y ago
    I don't understand how the publication date of this article correlates to the subject of the article lacks credibility. Do you care to cite specific examples of how Lavabit's founder should not be trusted?
    - kamjam 13y ago
      This guy is keeping the story on the news agenda loud and clear. I was referring to this part of the comment, nothing else.
ekidd 13y ago
Downvoted for challenging the credibility of a political dissident without providing evidence. I'm perfectly willing to hear a case if you want to make one (links are fine), but simply asserting that his "credibility was shot down pretty well" is a sloppy debate tactic. In a case like this, I think it's important for people to actually examine the evidence on their own. Otherwise we become too susceptible to propaganda (on one side) and mistaken outrage (on the other).
andrewcooke 13y ago
the only thing i can think that you're referring to is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6199050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6199050 if that's what you remember then i think you misunderstood that thread. what i took from there was: - there is no good, clean, technical solution for encrypted webmail (and people have been saying this for ages) - the final security guarantees for encrypted webmail depend on the operator - lavabit's operator held up their side of the bargain and refused to cooperate when they felt it was wrong to do so. so lavabit's operator's conscience was all that stood between the users and the nsa. that's how it has to be from a technical viewpoint. and people with technical smarts understood that (unfortunately, not everyone did). so it's to the credit of this guy that he took the stand he did. when he was the last line of defense, he held his ground. respect. much respect. (and i upvoted you just because i find it frustrating that downvoted comments get greyed out so no-one can see what is being discussed)
SimHacker 13y ago
No, actually, it looks like YOUR credibility was shot down pretty well here on HN 13 hours ago. Or do you always write in light gray text, not provide references, misunderstand earlier postings, and not answer direct questions? (Not that I expect an answer...)

Kiro 13y ago

Care to elaborate?

epo 13y ago

This guy is keeping the story on the news agenda loud and clear. I'm sure he doesn't care about the opinion of some Aspieish idiots on a discussion group. What's your credibility?

kamjam 13y ago
This story was originally published on Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:44 PM EDT To be fair, the article is from 3 days ago. More likely someone just posted the link on HN. Also, it's not the guys fault is NBC News are a little slow in reporting a story...
- uxp 13y ago
  I don't understand how the publication date of this article correlates to the subject of the article lacks credibility. Do you care to cite specific examples of how Lavabit's founder should not be trusted?
  - kamjam 13y ago
    This guy is keeping the story on the news agenda loud and clear. I was referring to this part of the comment, nothing else.

ekidd 13y ago

Downvoted for challenging the credibility of a political dissident without providing evidence. I'm perfectly willing to hear a case if you want to make one (links are fine), but simply asserting that his "credibility was shot down pretty well" is a sloppy debate tactic. In a case like this, I think it's important for people to actually examine the evidence on their own. Otherwise we become too susceptible to propaganda (on one side) and mistaken outrage (on the other).

andrewcooke 13y ago

the only thing i can think that you're referring to is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6199050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6199050 if that's what you remember then i think you misunderstood that thread. what i took from there was: - there is no good, clean, technical solution for encrypted webmail (and people have been saying this for ages) - the final security guarantees for encrypted webmail depend on the operator - lavabit's operator held up their side of the bargain and refused to cooperate when they felt it was wrong to do so. so lavabit's operator's conscience was all that stood between the users and the nsa. that's how it has to be from a technical viewpoint. and people with technical smarts understood that (unfortunately, not everyone did). so it's to the credit of this guy that he took the stand he did. when he was the last line of defense, he held his ground. respect. much respect. (and i upvoted you just because i find it frustrating that downvoted comments get greyed out so no-one can see what is being discussed)

SimHacker 13y ago

No, actually, it looks like YOUR credibility was shot down pretty well here on HN 13 hours ago. Or do you always write in light gray text, not provide references, misunderstand earlier postings, and not answer direct questions? (Not that I expect an answer...)