FSF responds to Microsoft's privacy and encryption announcement
1–10 of 69 posts
Re: FSF responds to Microsoft's privacy and encryption announcement
#2It seems like the response glosses over what Microsoft is actually doing and instead just attacks them for something unrelated (Widows is closed source). In the FSF eyes, Microsoft can do nothing to improve security until Windows is open sourced.
Re: FSF responds to Microsoft's privacy and encryption announcement
#3It seems like the response glosses over what Microsoft is actually doing and instead just attacks them for something unrelated (Widows is closed source). In the FSF eyes, Microsoft can do nothing to improve security until Windows is open sourced.
No, I think in the FSF's eyes -- rightfully -- it can't be proven that security has improved.
I also can't agree that it isn't related. If I tell you I'm wearing a green shirt, how can you know for sure if you or someone you trust hasn't verified it? You can't. It's the same with MSFT. But in the case of MSFT, it has been proven that they wear a lot of Hypercolor[1] stuff.
Is it good that MSFT is doing stuff to make things more secure? Sure. Do we still have to take it on faith that they are doing everything they can to protect their users? Yup.
Re: FSF responds to Microsoft's privacy and encryption announcement
#4It seems like the response glosses over what Microsoft is actually doing and instead just attacks them for something unrelated (Widows is closed source). In the FSF eyes, Microsoft can do nothing to improve security until Windows is open sourced.
Why would you place any amount of trust in a closed source privacy solution from a company with a history such as Microsoft's?
Re: FSF responds to Microsoft's privacy and encryption announcement
#5It seems like the response glosses over what Microsoft is actually doing and instead just attacks them for something unrelated (Widows is closed source). In the FSF eyes, Microsoft can do nothing to improve security until Windows is open sourced.
I think the article glosses over Microsoft's security measures by design. It is consistent with the FSF's position that closed/proprietary source is inherently more insecure than open source because you cannot freely review (even if you have the technical knowledge to do so) whatever measures the authors say they implemented.
Re: FSF responds to Microsoft's privacy and encryption announcement
#6> A lock on your own house to which you do not have the master key is not a security system, it is a jail.
This is completely bogus. The owner of the master key may have the access (understandably undesirable), but that does not keep you from getting out. If anything, it's like having no lock at all.
Re: FSF responds to Microsoft's privacy and encryption announcement
#7> A lock on your own house to which you do not have the master key is not a security system, it is a jail. This is completely bogus. The owner of the master key may have the access (understandably undesirable), but that does not keep you from getting out. If anything, it's like having no lock at all.
True, but their point that "these promises are meaningless" remains valid.
Re: FSF responds to Microsoft's privacy and encryption announcement
#8huh? I know this isn't going to be the popular opinion but I have to get this off. As much as I respect FSF, this mentality is one of the things I dislike about them. Statements that imply either you are with us or you are evil, trying to crash at opening events of MS/Apple "saving" people from closed source etc.
Not everything has to be open source and not everyone has to choose open source. Microsoft/Apple/Google may never make their core products open but it doesn't mean they can't try to make it secure or privacy conscious. The beauty of freedom is that YOU get to choose and trust what you want, good or bad, open or closed.
As a developer, I find GPL to be against the "spirit of open source", but it would be extremely wrong for me to demand you license your code differently or to even suggest to your clients to choose a liberal license. Its yours and their choice not mine.
Re: FSF responds to Microsoft's privacy and encryption announcement
#9I just love how the FSF ignores, and has ignored for a considerable amount of time that governments, and organizations can and have gotten the Windows source code, and that their actions today restate that they do provide the windows source code for governments to audit. Given that such programs have been available for a considerable amount of time, one has to wonder when the FSF is going to change their tactic away from their current one of outright lying about the situation.
Re: FSF responds to Microsoft's privacy and encryption announcement
#10It seems like the response glosses over what Microsoft is actually doing and instead just attacks them for something unrelated (Widows is closed source). In the FSF eyes, Microsoft can do nothing to improve security until Windows is open sourced.
Why would you place any amount of trust in a closed source privacy solution from a company with a history such as Microsoft's?
Because they employ intelligent, skilled people who care and know more about privacy than I do.
How many open source projects have most people audited for their own sense of satisfaction about its security promises?