8 ms·
End of discussion? No, sir, it is not! Your interpretation is extremely naïve. I could hold a gun to your head, for example. You wouldn't be forced per se to m
by kintamanimatt 13y ago
End of discussion? No, sir, it is not!
Your interpretation is extremely naïve. I could hold a gun to your head, for example. You wouldn't be forced per se to meet my demands, but you probably would because it would be extremely unreasonable not to. In the same way, the consequences for not complying are: an extremely expensive and possibly unaffordable rewrite, going to jail for a few years, or giving up their customers data in violation of their principles. The GHCQ order effectively put a gun to their head.
- lttlrck 13y agoWhy is it extremely unreasonable to not comply when there is a gun at your head but not in this case?
- kintamanimatt 13y agoI think you've misread what I wrote.
- jackgavigan 13y ago> I could hold a gun to your head, for example. You wouldn't be forced per se to meet my demands, but you probably would because it would be extremely unreasonable not to. GCHQ never demanded that CertiVox shut down their service. That is the bottom line and, no matter what sort of ridiculous "gun against your head" rationale you come up with or how firmly you plug your ears while shouting "LALALA!" at the top of your voice; you cannot refute that fact. EDIT: Actually, why don't we see what the CEO of CertiVox has to say on the matter? "The headline strongly infers our friends at GCHQ “forced” us to take PrivateSky down. That’s hogwash." Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6894316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6894316
- kintamanimatt 13y agoI think you should direct your fingers-in-ears comment towards yourself. In any event, I can't make a further argument without being repetitive.
- teamgb 13y agoSir Ian, nice try, but we know it's you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Lobban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Lobban
- res0nat0r 13y agoSounds like these services actually shutting down is a good thing for the end users, since they aren't actually securely designed in the first place! They even admit in the article they'd have to properly design their system to make email unreadable by their staff, and they chose to shutter their service vs trying to figure out how to make that work and still make money.
- bribriinlondon2 13y agoNo, re-read the article, your wrong. We made our system's data unreadable by staff, that's the first thing we did. Making it readable by GCHQ would have incurred the cost.