4 ms·
> The element that does not square with any theories that suggest benevolent intent behind the change is the recommendation that users switch to Bitlocker. I r
by UVB-76 12y ago
> The element that does not square with any theories that suggest benevolent intent behind the change is the recommendation that users switch to Bitlocker.
I realize we are firmly in conspiracy theory territory here, but perhaps the suggestion that users switch to Bitlocker is intended to be so patently absurd as to be a signal that the developers are under duress?
- jebblue 12y agoI'd agree, that seems more believable than some of the other theories I've read.
- dsuth 12y agoThat's my take on it as well, even though it fails the Occam's razor test. This all sounds like a very understated way of saying "we can no longer develop truecrypt with impunity, and the only other options are closed source, and highly likely to be compromised out of the gate".
- tacotime 12y agoThis is currently my favorite theory, for lack of a better word. It's also potentially pretty disturbing news. I saw another user mention the term warrant canary. I'd call it a warrant canary for the cautious/well informed. Unless there is some serious action on the horizon, no one well informed will ever use a truecrypt release past 7.2 ever again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary My very first thought upon hearing this news was that just maybe the trucrypt devs are secretly cheering for others to come and replace the hole they fill in this world. Maybe this is the best possible thing they could do to inspire the next generation of truecrypt. They've laid a good foundation but they know they can't win the war for free information security on their own. So what better good could they do than to inspire the mother of invention; necessity.