Hi! On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Albert López <newbieswo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Ok, I understand what you mean. But why rely in a client-server approach > when you can achieve your goal with a peer to peer solution?
Their answer is: "The way to make the system secure is that we can control the infrastructure. Distributing to other servers makes it impossible to give any guarantees about the security. We’ll have audits from trusted third parties on our platforms regularily, in cooperation with our community." Which is a bit hand-wavy if we assumed that server code can be closed source if client part is done well enough that you don't have to think about the server side and you still know that you are secure. :-) But my main and almost only argument was, that I think we should wait for a bit more concrete information before discarding the idea. At least I can imagine plausible ways to implement the system securely and having it known security properties while retaining part of it closed source and centralized. But we don't know much to make any real claims. What is interesting though, is that: "We are building Heml.is on top of proven technologies, such as XMPP with PGP." Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
