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

Ali-Reza Anghaie ali at packetknife.com
Tue Nov 6 11:16:34 PST 2012


It's not just me who interprets it that way - the only reason I responded
was that after Nadim's first post I was approached by former colleagues who
are still in the DoD circles. They all wondered if these complaints, that
seemed awfully specific to ~one~ player in the industry, were born from
Anonymous or other political movements because of the Navy SEALs involved
in the founding.

I explained I trusted people would judge Silent Circle more on actions and
the history of PZ and Jon Callas but hey, that's still my speculation..

Nadim also posted this on his Twitter timeline - it's hardly a "without
publicity" move, and he quickly engaged CSoghoian too. It's not a stretch
to say it was a bit of "look at me!"..

However, with all that said, it WOULD be a stretch to say that Nadim is
~wrong~ in his eventual technocratic position here. I'm just arguing the
tactical value of it given the very wide problem sets we all have.

-Ali



On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Greg Norcie <greg at norcie.com> wrote:

> Nadim,
>
> You are correct - the website (nor the whois) mention you. But your post
> on this mailing list does.
>
> You seem like a very intelligent guy - if you had intended this to be an
> anonymous critique, I doubt you'd have used your real name to post the
> link :)
> --
> Greg Norcie (greg at norcie.com)
> GPG key: 0x1B873635
>
> On 11/6/12 2:06 PM, Nadim Kobeissi wrote:
> > 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
> > <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> >     > <mailto: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>
> >     <mailto: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 <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>
> >     <mailto: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
> >     <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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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/20121106/70f82e0b/attachment.html>


More information about the liberationtech mailing list