The negative response to this post is over the top. At most, you can say that they overstated their case by neglecting to talk about server trust and using the

The negative response to this post is over the top. At most, you can say that they overstated their case by neglecting to talk about server trust and using the word "comfortable" in an article about security. :) To address a few red herrings: Saying that no solution is better than a flawed solution is absurd. There's no such thing as impenetrable security. On that basis, we shouldn't bother with HTTPS. For that matter, we shouldn't bother with passwords, either. We do these things because they make attacks incrementally more difficult and thus redirect attackers' efforts to more vulnerable targets, or make it expensive enough not to bother. Every little bit helps. Saying that you can't do this because you have to verify everything on every page load utterly ignores the past decade of development of rich client applications. Saying that you shouldn't do this because it's been tried before also ignores virtually the entire history of technological innovation. This is important problem and constructive criticism from security experts is extremely valuable. But the only "sophistry" I'm seeing here is from the people who can help the most. This is a beta, invite-only app bootstrapped out of the proverbial garage. Their blog post on the technical details missed a few things. If you've ever been in those shoes, you know how easy that is to do. I've seen billion dollar companies do worse. Most of the article was accurate, well-written, and probably helpful to a lot of readers. Help 'em out, don't tear 'em down.