Denny wrote: > Yes, the fact that this potential feature is being lumped in with the > concept of 'security' levels is misleading and unhelpful. Nobody is > wanting it to provide security, we all know it won't do that, that's not > why we want it. Any reply which says "This won't provide any real > security" is not actually addressing the reasons for this feature > request. Honest :)
The problem isn't what you (plural) would want the feature for, or how you would use it. The problem is how the userbase at large would perceive it, and I'm pretty much certain that a whole lot of people would perceive it as a security feature, even though it doesn't offer any security. Remember that the people on this list are likelier to be more technically savvy and familiar with the site than the userbase at large. What's obvious to you isn't going to be obvious to everyone. Giving the impression of security when there's none there is something we really really don't want to do. We absolutely need for people to trust our security 100% so we want to avoid anything that could shake that confidence, even if it isn't our fault. If people see this feature as offering security, use it as such, and then get burned, everyone loses. It's not that something like this doesn't have legitimate uses. It's also not that we should avoid anything that could possibly be misused or misconstrued (if we were doing that, we may as well go home now). It's just that the legitimate use is sufficiently narrow, and the potential for misunderstanding so large that any benefit is outweighed by the costs. -- rho _______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
