[liberationtech] Cryptography super-group creates unbreakable encryption

[Nadim Kobeissi]

I agree with Julian!

And it doesn't mean that if you open source your code, you can't profit
from it. You can pick a license that makes your code open source while
still giving you IP rights. While I personally don't like those licenses,
for-profit crypto companies should always do this and publish their source
BEFORE the app is released, so there's time for audits and public review.


NK


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Julian Oliver <julian at julianoliver.com>wrote:

> ..on Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 08:00:24PM -0800, Adam Fisk wrote:
> >
> > I think the principle of that is great, but in practice we just can't
> > all review all the code all the time. In practice we often end up
> > trusting open source code that is far worse reviewed than much of the
> > closed source code we trust. I'm not trying to attack open source --
> > I've been writing open source code full time for the past 13 years --
> > it's what I do. But I don't think we should be delusional about it.
>
>
> I find this an unproductive black-and-white argument. Proprietary software
> does
> not grant and encourage its own users even the /possibility/ to fully
> audit the
> service whereas open source software does.
>
> It's a no brainer, quite frankly.
>
> We need to simply stop considering proprietary solutions at all (as it's
> clearly
> ridiculous to have any case of trust built atop it) and make our starting
> point
> the wide variety of open source software, some of which is poorly
> engineered and
> some which is not.
>
> The "what sucks the least" scale must begin with open source, not
> proprietary
> offerings from for-profit companies with a centralised service.
>
> Again, it's a no-brainer.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Julian Oliver
> http://julianoliver.com
> http://criticalengineering.org
> --
> 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/20130219/783cca40/attachment.html>