...Just because it seems to work when you encrypt it now, there's no guarantee that it won't stop working if they don't support the OS. They presumably say that for some reason...
I reckon that is a valid point, and if you follow it to a logical conclusion, then one conclusion you could end up with is Microsoft BitLocker being arguably the only safe/stable encryption tool for the Windows OSes
. That might
be OK if you could trust
Microsoft, but Microsoft's own actions would seem to have demonstrated that there is no rational basis for such trust - quite the opposite, in fact.For example - DRM:
For example - Stacker:
- Microsoft kinda showed their colours in that regard when they unilaterally decided to embed the functionality of proprietary DRM (Digital Rights Management) into the otherwise apparently excellent WMP (Windows Media Player) several years ago, and then proceeded to cement that into the works right up until the present day. WMP will thus apparently refuse/disable playing of any music/media file that has a dodgy DRM key, and also it wants to phone home an awful lot, passing on goodness-knows-what information about one's media collection and PC to Big Brother's Head Office. A sort of electronic form of Brownshirt or one of Mao's card-carrying child revolutionaries. How could one trust that?
- Why was Microsoft doing that? Presumably it hadn't been because the users were clamouring for DRM, but because MS had concluded a deal with the **AA to have DRM policing embedded into the OS for every PC as much as possible, for which MS would probably receive monies on some kind of a fee scale. From that perspective, and instigated so many years ago, it would seem to have been a very far-sighted move, and you can bet that the **AA probably didn't dream it up but had to be persuaded of its merit by a third party (i.e., MS).
In the area of disk compression (and some encryption), MS arguably demonstrated its true colours in the '80s - refer:
Can MS be trusted not to behave like this in the future? Probably not
The general rule would be that a good corporate psychopath - e.g., including such as Microsoft or Google - is a leopard that cannot
change its spots, by law and as a legal person, and it would be irrational to expect it to do so, regardless of any corporate propaganda, hype or BS to the contrary (e.g., Google's reported "Do no evil").
There are some (a few) notable exceptions to that general rule that I am aware of, including:
- Cadbury - founders were philanthropic Quakers.
- CDC (Control Data Corporation) - founder was philanthropic.
- but this would be (or was) only true whilst they were still under the chairmanship of their philanthropic/Quaker founding presidents/families. However, CDC and Cadbury arguably would not have properly fitted the definition of being "a good corporate psychopath"
in any event.
And then there was this curious statement from Apple's CEO
He didn't stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR representative and said, "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock."
So, we know
that the motivation is probably not
philanthropy (QED - by their own marketing behaviour and the apparently confirmed reports of Apple's use of slave/sweatshop labour in Asian countries), and now we know
(or are being told, apparently) that it's not
always ROI - so what is
it? The inescapable conclusion would seem
to be that it could well be (in this case, at least) for religio-political ideological
reasons. But that would be incredible - because Apple is an incorporated, for-profit legal person and is obliged to act in that regard at all times.
Thus it is more likely to be driven by the usual cynical corporate psychopathy, which in this case would be to make itself appealing to the huge financial backing of a large green/environmental investment lobby, which has taken on the definite shape of an investment cartel. So Apple's CEO is more likely just a very smart businessman and was dissembling, and he will
be acting to increase ROI, since you can't fault investment in green/environmental can you - especially
if it is a policy that is backed by the US government?
(Whoops! Did somebody just say "Solyndra"?)
But any sensible investor (those who matter, at any rate) would have known this and would have seen the CEO's statement for what it was - a clever response to appeal to that large green/environmental investment lobby/cartel.
So who can
one trust for honesty and ethical integrity in the development of encryption technology? At this point, I would have said "TrueCrypt". (Ostensibly public domain, open technology, not-for-profit.)