3 ms·
Nice try, but pointless and snake oil, since the iPhone is not a secure device. Try building a secure device that users "own" first, then spend effort on build
by lazyjones 12y ago
Nice try, but pointless and snake oil, since the iPhone is not a secure device.
Try building a secure device that users "own" first, then spend effort on building secure services on top.
- nodata 12y agoNice idea, but in the real world you need to create a service that people "use" first, then spend effort on building a secure device.
- lazyjones 12y agoNoone's ever going to build a secure device if people are fed such snake oil and given the impression that they have "some" or "enough" security if they use it.
- nodata 12y agoSecurity works in layers, and unfortunately consumers want the wrong layer first.
- lazyjones 12y agoThe point is, they get 0 security and we should not pretend that they are getting more. We are ripping off consumers if we do, what we think they want is a poor excuse, unless we're just in it for the money/fame/other benefits.
- andor 12y agoSoftware like this is about making mass surveillance more expensive. If you have a backdoor or a remote exploit for a phone, you might still be able to wiretap somebody, but at least all data on the network is encrypted.
- lazyjones 12y agoApparently I'm fighting windmills here, but encryption does not work on compromised devices. It will be sabotaged and rendered ineffective. Google for DROPOUTJEEP, what makes you think you can keep the encryption code safe from manipulation?