On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:29:37 +0200 (CEST), Carlo von Loesch <[email protected]> wrote: > Matt Lee typeth: > | This is also why I think something in a browser would be more > | understandable by a typical user. > > A user also understands a Skype client or a bittorrent plugin. > Maybe he even understands a Jabber client. > > The choice of tools is not limited by mental capacities yet. > The question is how much are you intending to through encryption, > thus privacy, out of the window.
We're not. > | Case in point: I will likely wind up hosting a GNU social setup for at > | least my immediate family who currently use Facebook. It needs to be so > | easy that they can just login and use it, without installing software. > > And it doesn't really give them all that much advantage, if all > private information is still traveling the net unencrypted or > lying on ISP commodity hard disks ready to be harvested. Even *if* Social didn't encrypt its own messages, https exists. Let's get something working before we start worrying about the insoluble problems like how to prevent an attacker on a server decrypting data that must be decrypted on the server. ;-) - Rob.
