Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Switzerland-based ProtonMail, yet another secure email service
40hz:
Yet again more arguments for decentralised systems that are guaranteed to freak out a lot of people who are very much attached to centralised models (which we know are fragile and catastrophic when they fail). But, y'know... screw logic because tradition. ;)
-Renegade (June 18, 2014, 07:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
It's an interesting idea. Sorta like the old Discordian principle which states that Discordian cabals need to "stand apart with each" other if the day of liberation is ever to come - or the eschaton immanentized - whichever comes first.
That said, I'm not ready to say that DAOs (and all the other decentralized/double-blind/distributed/neocurrency/cryptography and network ideas) by themselves will bring us into Paradise. No matter how well-designed a system, ways can be found to game it. And somebody inevitably will.
Which brings us back to the "people problem" and the need for "men/persons of goodwill" to really make it happen.
The thing that makes me wonder how likely that will be is listening to the people you usually find involved in launching these "new" systems. They're hardly men of goodwill. Their attitude towards others is not very cordial. They love to casually refer to the general population as fucktards, sheeple, clueless, and stupid - secure in an unshakable belief in their own intellectual and moral superiority. Most I've met or talked to are unapologetically out for themselves - although they'll cloak it somewhat under the banner of "enlightened self-interest" and argue that "a rising tide floats all boats." Funny how much that way of thinking mirrors that of the old "trickle down" economic argument.
So...instead of the benefits trickling down, under the new system they'll now trickle up?
Hmm...not getting warm fuzzies over any of this.
With multi-signature in Bitcoin, you no longer have that same single point of failure. Sure, you can turn over your private keys, but that won't help when more than 1 key is needed.
So the thugs then need to go out and kidnap someone else and get their private keys as well.
-Renegade (June 18, 2014, 07:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
Um...how is that a significant problem or challenge with the resources the average national government has at it's disposal? Arrest one person or sweep up a hundred. Sign an order to waterboard one person (or twenty) - it's all in a day's work for some apparatchik.
Talking about doing things that would make life more difficult for thugs tells me (on some level) that the person saying it still believes there are enforceable rules in effect. Well..I got some bad news for him/her: There aren't.
Renegade:
Which brings us back to the "people problem" and the need for "men/persons of goodwill" to really make it happen.
-40hz (June 18, 2014, 10:11 PM)
--- End quote ---
You won't get many arguments about people being the problem from me. ;)
The thing that makes me wonder how likely that will be is listening to the people you usually find involved in launching these "new" systems. They're hardly men of goodwill. Their attitude towards others is not very cordial. They love to casually refer to the general population as fucktards, sheeple, clueless, and stupid - secure in an unshakable belief in their own intellectual and moral superiority. Most I've met or talked to are unapologetically out for themselves - although they'll cloak it somewhat under the banner of "enlightened self-interest" and argue that "a rising tide floats all boats." Funny how much that way of thinking mirrors that of the old "trickle down" economic argument.
So...instead of the benefits trickling down, under the new system they'll now trickle up?
Hmm...not getting warm fuzzies over any of this.
-40hz (June 18, 2014, 10:11 PM)
--- End quote ---
I'm entirely missing your point. Really. I'm not trying to be difficult.
I don't think there's any debate over whether or not decentralised systems are more resilient than centralised systems. That's pretty much a given. So I'm not sure what you're getting at there...
With multi-signature in Bitcoin, you no longer have that same single point of failure. Sure, you can turn over your private keys, but that won't help when more than 1 key is needed.
So the thugs then need to go out and kidnap someone else and get their private keys as well.
-Renegade (June 18, 2014, 07:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
Um...how is that a significant problem or challenge with the resources the average national government has at it's disposal? Arrest one person or sweep up a hundred. Sign an order to waterboard one person (or twenty) - it's all in a day's work for some apparatchik.
-40hz (June 18, 2014, 10:11 PM)
--- End quote ---
Like I said...
It's certainly not perfect - but it makes the single point of failure a thing of the past, and makes breaking into encrypted data just that much harder. -Renegade (June 18, 2014, 07:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yes - it can be overcome. But, it's much harder now.
Consider the case where you and I hold the keys required to access some resource. We're not in the same country, or even on the same continent. That certainly complicates the efforts of either government where we live to extract information from us as neither of us alone can unlock it.
This is a significant improvement over the previous single-key system.
Can it be overcome? Absolutely! Is it as easy? No.
Again... Red Queens all over the place here. 8)
Talking about doing things that would make life more difficult for thugs tells me (on some level) that the person saying it still believes there are enforceable rules in effect. Well..I got some bad news for him/her: There aren't.
-40hz (June 18, 2014, 10:11 PM)
--- End quote ---
You will get exactly 1 argument from me about that. ;)
I don't think there are any enforceable rules. I merely believe that the amount of effort required is now more than it was previously.
It's the exact same thing as replacing the lock on your front door with a lock that is resistent to lock-picking. There is no significant difference in the cryptography case above - in each case, some element is introduced to further complicate/frustrate efforts to "get in".
Will the thugs get in? Maybe. Maybe not. It is entirely dependent on just how determined they are to get in.
Please don't think that I have any faith in government or that I believe in any illusory integrity that some would ascribe to them. I don't. ;)
My comments above were merely to point out that multi-signature cryptography has created the possibility to make accessing resources much more difficult than in the past.
IainB:
I received the same email (circular) from ProtonMail as @wraith808 has apparently received.
The email basically seems to be indirectly advising that there are now strings attached to the acceptance of your request to join ProtonMail.
I'd recommend a healthy dose of skepticism. From experience, introducing/attaching such strings at a late stage, where there were no such strings before, is something that can often precede the execution of a con trick.
40hz:
^I also have trouble accepting another "we had no idea the demand would be so great" excuse from a startup.
If true, it indicates a dangerous and unacceptable degree of naivety on the part of these folks. In the wake of the Snowden revelations, and the shuttering of Lavabit, they had no idea? Seriously?
And if not true, then IainB's suspicion about a potential scam in progress inches closer to a certainty in my book.
wraith808:
Indeed, both of your posts indicate what I was thinking of when I posted. I didn't want to be too cynical in my posting, however. ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version