3 ms·
What's troubling is, that their security track record has been abysmal from the start. In that regard, the acquisition sends entirely the wrong message.
by sentenza 13y ago
What's troubling is, that their security track record has been abysmal from the start. In that regard, the acquisition sends entirely the wrong message.
- stingraycharles 13y agoWhat message does it send, other than valuation not being based on the reputation of technical superiority?
- eropple 13y agoIt sends a message that caring about your users' trust, that doing what's right for them, is for suckers. This is not a test of "technical superiority". This is working against your users' best interests. One mistake is understandable, and sometimes forgivable, but you don't bilge it twice so cavalierly if you rank on the give-a-damn scale. (I say "cavalierly" because, as I noted elsewhere in this thread, I can't shake the feeling that this is the result of a design decision, not a technical failure.)
- nathancahill 13y agoSure, the message was sent. But does it have a read receipt?
- roc 13y agoThe market's been sending that same message for years. Security is a cost center and potential source of user-friction. User Data Integrity is a "nice to have". Privacy is considered only from the angle of "what can other users see through normal operation". And that market is driven by the consumers themselves.