3 ms·
I am doing a double-take as well. It seems like closed-source is antithesis to "designed for the every day person who really values their online security and p
by reginaldjcooper 13y ago
I am doing a double-take as well.
It seems like closed-source is antithesis to "designed for the every day person who really values their online security and privacy."
- true_religion 13y agoI think the key word there is 'every day person', which for most non-technical people means that they trust someone has looked after the problem, and may actually feel safer by paying someone to do so.
- jessaustin 13y agoUnfortunately the aforementioned persons are unlikely to realize they could pay someone to look after security in an open, communicative fashion.
- vezzy-fnord 13y agoThe placebo effect does not really apply to software, though.
- recursive 13y agoHow can you be so sure?
- vezzy-fnord 13y agoAt least for one, it is so much easier to break the placebo.
- pyalot2 13y agoOh there's no problem paying somebody to do a job. But somehow you'll need to be able to check that the job is done. Or at least read the opinion of somebody who has no stake in the matter to attest to the job being done. So "the job" here involving making a browser not do things, which you can't see. How often pray tell do you pay somebody to perform a job you can't verify the outcome of, but take him by his word that he did it?
- nextstep 13y agoHow? Seems to me like an "every day person" wouldn't dive into the source code of their browser.
- reginaldjcooper 13y agothey would not, but the "many eyes" effect would benefit them nevertheless