Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

For better security, maybe it's time to abandon e-mail?

<< < (7/10) > >>

40hz:
Just to clarify a few of my earlier points:


* "Chat" or "text" is being used more as a metaphor; or an exhortation to do things differently. It's not an argument that adapting chat or text is the only - or even a desirable approach to take to fix the problem.

* We need to think outside the box here. We don't want something else. We need something new.
 8)

40hz:
The general public at large does not care about privacy or security on any large scale at all.
-Innuendo (December 23, 2014, 09:11 PM)
--- End quote ---

Nor should they have to IMHO. That's what responsible professionals in our field exist for.


People don't care until something happens that personally affects them in an adverse way.
-Innuendo (December 23, 2014, 09:11 PM)
--- End quote ---

See above.

I could detail a laundry list of thing that people do every single day without giving a second thought to the security and privacy they are giving up.
-Innuendo (December 23, 2014, 09:11 PM)
--- End quote ---

To be honest, that's their prerogative. We attempt to educate as best we can. If we warn, and we're ignored, that's the limit of the responsibilities we can be expected to assume. After that, since we're professionals, it's just more billable time for us. ;) 8)

But we're not out to save the world here. Nor are we trying to come up with the "perfect" solution. We're just looking to make things significantly better than they are now. "Pretty good" will do for a start.

Shades:
Google Wave was a (half-hearted) attempt. And it got got flamed down, before it even got a chance to come to fruition.

As it was in development still, encryption could have been a building block, instead of a bolted-on thing for almost all other forms of communication.

40hz:
Google Wave was a (half-hearted) attempt. And it got got flamed down, before it even got a chance to come to fruition.
-Shades (December 24, 2014, 06:35 AM)
--- End quote ---

In fairness, Waves (like Chandler) struck me as fairly half-baked concept that was rather vague about exactly what it was supposed to be. And both Products included "features" and requirements that the users had made clear they didn't care for. Those objections from the users were mostly ignored since the devs too obviously had their own agenda.

So much for opt-in and tit-for-tat, right? That's a sure formula for failure with something that requires hordes of enthusiastic supporters to be successful.

Shades:
Granted, I went along with the promise from Wave at that time.

Being vague didn't help their cause, but I didn't think they expected the back-fire it got. Most people are quite entrenched on the tools and software they already have (learned to use).

Getting people out of that way of thinking and into another, safer way of communicating...without an already existing, somewhat useable concept in front of their noses? Good luck with that.

With hindsight 20/20, I agree Wave wasn't the answer and tried to do too much. However, the idea remains (in my head at least) that with more time, something could have spun off that base/concept with a better chance of adoption as a more secure communication environment.

Getting things (exactly) right the first time around is not easy and it will surely fail without a chance to evolve. So what if it didn't do things better than existing solutions. It was a fresh code base that arguably is easier to protect than all other products from different creators, each with different kinds of "baggage" regarding backwards compatibility, coding standards, protocols, etc.

Just sayin'.

Then again, 2009/2010 was not that long ago, but it feels like it was a different time then.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page