301–309 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This service shouldn't exist. It breaks the very concept of email security. They're marketing it as though it's safe. Want hyperbole? Imagine Bayer marketing heroin as safe because you know, it's opt-in.
Not that hard to imagine really given Bayer did market heroin as safe. Is very good for coughs, apparently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since this only works with Gmail, Google Apps, Yahoo, AOL, and iCloud, the email is already with a third party.
That is an interesting note, but if the business is using Gmail ( http://www.google.com/enterprise/apps/business/products.html ) maybe that's because they trust Google's services. Trusting one third party doesn't imply that you trust all third parties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would only say that it is a violation of trust if they somehow installed the certificate on your phone when installing the linkedIn app... If a user knowingly installs this, with the understanding that linkedin is essentially a proxy for their entire email ecosystem - then they are knowingly trusting linkedin. To be honest, I can see this being used by sales reps. They are often interested in connecting to people a…
1) Your average user has no idea what an iOS cert is doing. 2) Your average IT department in any publicly traded company would NEVER let this fly. 3) Any general council would shat all over this. No one likes fighting with lawyers, and this is a battle I'd never put on my plate. It's odd to assume generic users understands IMAP or what a proxy is. Remember how Apple makes products for dumb people? Yeah. They ran a ca…
I'd be all for this if the proxy were running on the device instead of LinkedIn's servers.
But i wouldn't do that, because this way, you can intercept all messages that people are mailing and it would harm your business image (at least, in my eyes).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about "the world isn't perfect and whilst it would be great to live up to our every ideal, our primary responsibility is running a business and providing a great experience for our users who, ultimately, in the vast majority regularly engage in such egregious violations of sensible security protocol that most-anything we do is unlikely to affect them and in cases where it would, said users are usually sufficientl…
That's a pretty long-winded explication of, "it's a race to the bottom."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Want hyperbole? Compare an opt in social network to heroin.
Why the hell not? Heroin from Bayer would not have the quality control issues Heroin typically has. It only becomes problematic when you consider that the user is getting themselves into a situation that they do not fully understand and potentially cannot easily back themselves out of. With drugs that have a high potential to cause harm, we typically force the consumer to consult a professional before allowing them t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly in a world of front-end JS frameworks you could fix this by encoding client-side before submission.
DON'T! Just don't. Encrypting user credentials in JS is probably even worse than parsing HTML with regular expressions: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open-... Just send it in cleartext, but over properly verified https.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly in a world of front-end JS frameworks you could fix this by encoding client-side before submission.
Or, use TLS and get it for free. Crypto on JS is a scary, scary world.