Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] issilentcircleopensourceyet.com

Nadim Kobeissi nadim at nadim.cc
Tue Nov 6 11:06:45 PST 2012


Greg,
The website does not mention me at all, it's purely meant as a complaint
against Silent Circle's policy. I've already written a lengthy post
regarding Silent Circle (http://log.nadim.cc/?p=89) and yet have received
no reply.


NK


On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Greg Norcie <greg at norcie.com> wrote:

> Nadim
>
> I understand your position, but actions like this website won't help
> your cause.
>
> Can you understand how actions like setting up this web site might be
> viewed as a way to call attention to oneself, rather than champion the
> (respectable) ideals of the open source movement?
> --
> Greg Norcie (greg at norcie.com)
> GPG key: 0x1B873635
>
> On 11/6/12 1:53 PM, Nadim Kobeissi wrote:
> > Ali,
> > The issue is trust. Security software verifiability should not have to
> > depend on Silent Circle (or who they hire to audit, for example
> Veracode.)
> >
> >
> > NK
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Ali-Reza Anghaie <ali at packetknife.com
> > <mailto:ali at packetknife.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Nobody would dispute that - that's not quite the same thing as FOSS
> >     default positions or some of the other criticisms.
> >
> >     For example, I'd contend a paid Veracode audit would in all
> >     likelihood be better than any typical FOSS audit. Had they done that
> >     (heck, they might have but I doubt it) and still announced the
> >     intent of opening the codebase - I wager that would not have stopped
> >     the criticism.
> >
> >     It appears to be a deep-seeded cultural divide more than any of the
> >     other factors combined.
> >
> >     -Al
> >
> >
> >
> >     On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Yosem Companys
> >     <companys at stanford.edu <mailto:companys at stanford.edu>> wrote:
> >
> >         Security audits are always important, especially when people's
> >         lives are at risk.
> >
> >         On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Nadim Kobeissi <nadim at nadim.cc
> >         <mailto:nadim at nadim.cc>> wrote:
> >
> >             Hi Ali,
> >             There is no "agenda," and there needn't be one if you are to
> >             critique security software. No need to be so aggressive.
> >             My qualms against Silent Circle are detailed
> >             here: http://log.nadim.cc/?p=89
> >
> >
> >             NK
> >
> >
> >
> >             On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ali-Reza Anghaie
> >             <ali at packetknife.com <mailto:ali at packetknife.com>> wrote:
> >
> >                 Seriously - what's your agenda?
> >
> >                 Where are the domains for the other tens of providers
> >                 who charge arms and legs based on closed protocols even?
> >
> >                 What's the nit with Silent Circle specifically? Because
> >                 they're accessible? Because it's easier to use? Because
> >                 the founders have good track records of standing up to
> >                 Government too?
> >
> >                 Being absolutist about everything isn't helping anyone
> >                 who ~needs~ it - it's a privilege of the "haves" that we
> >                 can have these conversations over and over again.
> >
> >                 Shouldn't we have taken the "fight" to carriers, Apple
> >                 iOS T&Cs, etc. harder and longer ago? And why do we keep
> >                 expecting private entities to fight our Government
> >                 battles for us? It's a losing proposition and increases
> >                 the costs-per-individual to untenable levels when we mix
> >                 absolutely all their enterprise with civil liberty
> issues.
> >
> >                 There has got to be a better way than this ridiculous
> >                 trolling and bickering. Someone? Anyone?
> >
> >                 Again, seriously, what's the agenda against Silent
> >                 Circle specifically?
> >
> >                 -Ali
> >
> >
> >
> >                 On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Nadim Kobeissi
> >                 <nadim at nadim.cc <mailto:nadim at nadim.cc>> wrote:
> >
> >                     http://issilentcircleopensourceyet.com/
> >
> >                     NK
> >
> >                     --
> >                     Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password
> >                     at:
> >
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> >
> >
> >
> >                 --
> >                 Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
> >
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> >
> >
> >
> >             --
> >             Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
> >             https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> >
> >
> >
> >         --
> >         Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
> >         https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> >
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
> >     https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> >
> --
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20121106/4f28f7f9/attachment.html>


More information about the liberationtech mailing list