13 ms·

The question is, can you trust someone who has broken trust in the past and in a major way?

by icantthinkofone 12y ago

MadMoogle 12y ago
Do you still use google products?
- icantthinkofone 12y ago
  Absolutely! I wouldn't have it any other way.
saraid216 12y ago
The point of "open" is that you don't have to.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > The point of "open" is that you don't have to. In theory, but realistically very little FOSS is audited, and audits are not perfect (and we have to trust the auditor). We have to trust the authors.
  - rakoo 12y ago
    While it's true that softwares are rarely audited, protocols are much more analyzed because they are expected to be read by humans. Fortunately, the DarkMail authors want to create a new protocol and have it interoperable, so there should be an open protocol; that's the most important thing, and we must keep our focus on it.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    If you decline to audit FOSS yourself, you can't complain about being forced to trust someone else.
sarciszewski 12y ago
How exactly did Stephen Watt break trust? He didn't steal any credit cards, he didn't profit from other people stealing credit cards, and he allegedly was not aware of the purpose for that sniffer program. He's an old-school black hat who broke into systems for the lulz, not for financial gain. (Ever heard of ~el8?). His mistake was believing his associates shared his priorities. Not only that, but when he was being pressured and threatened by the government, he refused to cooperate. I think that's commendable and demonstrates real integrity.
- Mandatum 12y ago
  Do you really believe he didn't know what it was being used for? He acknowledged it was using to sniff traffic, if not for credit-cards? What? Account details? Unless there were logs or talks of them doing it for purely academic/educational purposes, which as we know Gonzalez isn't that "sort" of person, it would be unacceptable to think someone of Watt's intellect wouldn't be able to put 2-and-2 together. He's been around the scene. He knows the scene. He's been a part of the scene. I agree in terms of law, this all goes into a very grey and fuzzy area - if he had a better lawyer he may have came out in a different situation. Looking at the recent backlash for hackers, he may be looking at an apology (or even a payout) in the future.

The question is, can you trust someone who has broken trust in the past and in a major way?

MadMoogle 12y ago

Do you still use google products?

icantthinkofone 12y ago
Absolutely! I wouldn't have it any other way.

saraid216 12y ago

The point of "open" is that you don't have to.

hackuser 12y ago
> The point of "open" is that you don't have to. In theory, but realistically very little FOSS is audited, and audits are not perfect (and we have to trust the auditor). We have to trust the authors.
- rakoo 12y ago
  While it's true that softwares are rarely audited, protocols are much more analyzed because they are expected to be read by humans. Fortunately, the DarkMail authors want to create a new protocol and have it interoperable, so there should be an open protocol; that's the most important thing, and we must keep our focus on it.
- saraid216 12y ago
  If you decline to audit FOSS yourself, you can't complain about being forced to trust someone else.

sarciszewski 12y ago

How exactly did Stephen Watt break trust? He didn't steal any credit cards, he didn't profit from other people stealing credit cards, and he allegedly was not aware of the purpose for that sniffer program. He's an old-school black hat who broke into systems for the lulz, not for financial gain. (Ever heard of ~el8?). His mistake was believing his associates shared his priorities. Not only that, but when he was being pressured and threatened by the government, he refused to cooperate. I think that's commendable and demonstrates real integrity.

Mandatum 12y ago
Do you really believe he didn't know what it was being used for? He acknowledged it was using to sniff traffic, if not for credit-cards? What? Account details? Unless there were logs or talks of them doing it for purely academic/educational purposes, which as we know Gonzalez isn't that "sort" of person, it would be unacceptable to think someone of Watt's intellect wouldn't be able to put 2-and-2 together. He's been around the scene. He knows the scene. He's been a part of the scene. I agree in terms of law, this all goes into a very grey and fuzzy area - if he had a better lawyer he may have came out in a different situation. Looking at the recent backlash for hackers, he may be looking at an apology (or even a payout) in the future.