Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
TrueCrypt alternative
40hz:
@IainB - thx for sharing that. For once I find myself almost entirely in agreement with WindowsSecrets about something important.
(Note: I do however have a problem with Cryptainer's tiered pricing scheme. In the past I've always had trouble recommending it (as in not) because of that. But that's likely more just me being me. ;))
wraith808:
@IainB - thx for sharing that. For once I find myself almost entirely in agreement with WindowsSecrets about something important.
(Note: I do however have a problem with Cryptainer's tiered pricing scheme. In the past I've always had trouble recommending it (as in not) because of that. But that's likely more just me being me. ;))
-40hz (June 20, 2014, 09:31 AM)
--- End quote ---
Well, in the past, there were more alternatives :( I wouldn't recommend diskcryptor just because they say that OSes are not supported. 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...
IainB:
...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...
-wraith808 (June 20, 2014, 10:49 AM)
--- End quote ---
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:
* 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).
For example - Stacker:
In the area of disk compression (and some encryption), MS arguably demonstrated its true colours in the '80s - refer:
* Stac Electronics and
* Hifn
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."
--- End quote ---
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.)
Hmm, tricky.
wraith808:
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.
-IainB (June 21, 2014, 02:01 AM)
--- End quote ---
Not exactly. If you find an encryption tool that's valid for your current OS, then it should be valid up until the point that you change OS. And you can take steps before you change to see (a) if that particular software supports your new OS before you install it, and (b) if not, find another and switch.
40hz:
...because Apple is an incorporated, for-profit legal person and is obliged to act in that regard at all times.
-IainB (June 21, 2014, 02:01 AM)
--- End quote ---
Not really. There's no legal requirement they do so, contrary to the erroneous but widely held belief there is. That Apple (and other corporations) may, in practice, act as if there is such a requirement, is a separate issue.
An article over at the Washington Post by Neil Irwin has a good discussion about the myths and issues surrounding the notion of "maximizing shareholder value." Find it here.
From the article:
...There are no statutes that put the shareholder at the top of the corporate priority list. In most states, corporations can be formed for any lawful purpose. Cornell University law professor Lynn Stout has been looking for years for a corporate charter that even mentions maximizing profits or share price. She hasn’t found one.
Nor does the law require, as many believe, that executives and directors owe a special fiduciary duty to shareholders. The fiduciary duty, in fact, is owed simply to the corporation, which is owned by no one, just as you and I are owned by no one — we are all “persons” in the eyes of the law. Shareholders, however, have a contractual claim to the “residual value” of the corporation once all its other obligations have been satisfied — and even then directors are given wide latitude to make whatever use of that residual value they choose, as long they’re not stealing it for themselves.
It is true that only shareholders have the power to select a corporation’s directors. But it requires the peculiar imagination of a corporate lawyer to leap from that to a broad mandate that those directors have a duty to put the interests of shareholders above all others...
--- End quote ---
I think it's important to keep in mind that companies do what they do for their own reasons. There are no laws which compel them to behave in an immoral or abusive manner. That some in business attempt to claim there are such laws is simply a smokescreen put up in the attempt to avoid culpability for acts which often are illegal. So let's not get taken in by it.
:)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version