On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 12:44:58AM -0700, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote: > Hello again, people of liberationtech. > > Nobody replied to my missive. Perhaps it was Too Long; Didn't Read! > But I wanted to mention to you that I subsequently talked to some > young programmers at DefCon. I told them that my claim is that > LeastAuthority.com's S4 is proof against PRISM-style indiscriminate > surveillance, but not proof against targeted surveillance. They > suggested: why not call it “PRISM-proof” then? Good idea! I might do > that. > > Regards, > > Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn > > Founder, CEO, and Customer Support Representative > > https://LeastAuthority.com
I'm a bit reticent to accept "spy proof" and even specifically citing PRISM seems either too specific or not general enough. When I read your post initially I was thinking "more like dragnet proof." If the "spies" really want you, malware could really put a crimp in the integrity of your trusted node. While your audience right now is probably mostly technical it probably won't always be and on that basis I worry slightly that "spy proof" sets less savvy users up for (potentially) unreasonable expectations about the security properties of the system. I think maybe emphasizing how the intervening network and storage provider need not be trusted might be the most straightforward. -- http://twitter.com/maximus_freeman 260D 9167 F8D9 3913 3564 E571 7D96 4D33 6114 2ACF
-- Liberationtech list is public and archives are searchable on Google. 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
