4 ms·

These statements again... Time to get some downvotes, I guess. How do I know? How can I even know that YOUR own device for which YOU wrote software and YOU des

These statements again... Time to get some downvotes, I guess. How do I know? How can I even know that YOUR own device for which YOU wrote software and YOU designed hardware (although it may be based on some standards, no one can guarantee it's unmodified) won't share my private information with YOU? How can I know that you're not sending my private key encrypted with your server's public key (one simple example of many) to your side? Am I supposed to take your word on it? No thanks. As much as I'm against Apple and their policy, these statements make no sense from anyone (Google, Apple, whatever). Unless you design your own phone from scratch, you can not be sure that it is secure (however, when you do that, all medium your phone may use is still not secure). It is simply not worth it. Anything in digital world is not secure (only a matter of attacker's determination and resources available to them) and there is no point in saying otherwise.

MarkSweep 12y ago
I tend to agree, it's much easier to just assume all online commutations are monitored than to try to escape the gaze of the five eyes (of Sauron). Maybe this attitude means they have already won?
- gear54rus 12y ago
  For some reason I think only diversity may help. 1000s different systems built differently are harder to milk for useful information if user is smart.. Centralization is the enemy of privacy (centralized = compromised). Unless they have an AI which can analyze such systems' patterns at the speed of light and present solutions (which is not as unbelievable as self-conscious AI) but it's still more of a fiction. Really, the problem is not in tech, it's in people. We're not fixing this one anytime soon.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- gear54rus 12y ago
  It's just.. this statement barely has any meaning to it then. Carefully crafted sentences, yes, but what difference does it make to the outcome, to the end user? We most certainly know that iMessage (like any other service) is not secure and now we are also left pondering if he is telling the truth or not about something that doesn't even matter in the end :) Maybe I'm being too critical or maybe I'm missing something.

MarkSweep 12y ago

I tend to agree, it's much easier to just assume all online commutations are monitored than to try to escape the gaze of the five eyes (of Sauron). Maybe this attitude means they have already won?

gear54rus 12y ago
For some reason I think only diversity may help. 1000s different systems built differently are harder to milk for useful information if user is smart.. Centralization is the enemy of privacy (centralized = compromised). Unless they have an AI which can analyze such systems' patterns at the speed of light and present solutions (which is not as unbelievable as self-conscious AI) but it's still more of a fiction. Really, the problem is not in tech, it's in people. We're not fixing this one anytime soon.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

gear54rus 12y ago
It's just.. this statement barely has any meaning to it then. Carefully crafted sentences, yes, but what difference does it make to the outcome, to the end user? We most certainly know that iMessage (like any other service) is not secure and now we are also left pondering if he is telling the truth or not about something that doesn't even matter in the end :) Maybe I'm being too critical or maybe I'm missing something.