Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Security for the people

google-opensource.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: Security for the people

#51

Post by blueking »

laydros wrote: post #28

This sounds smart. And I'm pretty pragmatic. I don't think Google and Apple and Microsoft are really trying to ruin my privacy. But something about this makes me uncomfortable. The fact that when this appeared on the front page of HN it was with posts from Google and Dropbox about how they support this. Google that Assange is releasing a book about, and Dropbox that went a day where it didn't matter what password you…

Totally agree. Its security theater. I don't believe for one second its a sincere gesture. I would definitely not want to use a open source security project google got involved in. Its obviously an attempt to get a influence in tomorrows secure infrastructure such that it does not cut google out of the data their business depends on. Your.. private... data.

Re: Security for the people

#52

Post by blueking »

hack_edu wrote: post #21
gress wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Apple's devotion to privacy ends at phone unlock." If you had read either the privacy policy or security architecture, you would know that you have made a false statement here. I think it's you who is trying to distract us from the fact that Google itself uses your private data for its own business purposes, and has a vested interest in not protecting you from itself.

I find it adorable how people buy into the rhetoric and trust that Apple doesn't leverage and track your data. They are a hardware and content company, and they absolutely leverage all the data they can in order to better market you the content they think you might want. Its not just business, its personal. Even with the lions' share of their money coming from hardware sales, so what? Without deep, targeted tracking…

Agree. They are both guilty as sin. Apple perhaps slightly less so.

Re: Security for the people

#53

Post by gress »

hack_edu wrote: post #21
gress wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Apple's devotion to privacy ends at phone unlock." If you had read either the privacy policy or security architecture, you would know that you have made a false statement here. I think it's you who is trying to distract us from the fact that Google itself uses your private data for its own business purposes, and has a vested interest in not protecting you from itself.

I find it adorable how people buy into the rhetoric and trust that Apple doesn't leverage and track your data. They are a hardware and content company, and they absolutely leverage all the data they can in order to better market you the content they think you might want. Its not just business, its personal. Even with the lions' share of their money coming from hardware sales, so what? Without deep, targeted tracking…

So you simply choose to believe they are lying with no evidence at all.

Not much point in discussing anything with you, I guess.

Re: Security for the people

#54

Post by jamessantiago »

higherpurpose wrote: post #24

I'd like to see Hangouts eventually implement some of Signal/TextSecure's crypto.

I'd like Hangouts to do a lot of things. It looks like they made the right choice in moving away from XMPP compliance in favor of usability. It certainly improved the apps' popularity but took a lot of back steps on security and openness. I'd like to at least see google include hangouts as part of their upcoming [end-to-end](https://code.google.com/p/end-to-end/) extension.

Re: Security for the people

#55

Post by tombrossman »

girvo wrote: post #48
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you exactly mean?

Telling the Google Open Source people to use Piwik instead of Google Analytics seems like satire.

I know the Piwik recommendation gave some a reason to chuckle but I was dead serious. This initiative was promoted by Dropbox (who recently brought Condoleeza Rice on board) and Google (an ad company currently removing privacy-enhancing apps from their mobile marketplace) and so this group will need to distinguish themselves to appear credible.

It's that or be dismissed as just another iteration of Microsoft's 'embrace, extend, extinguish' plays.

Re: Security for the people

#56

Post by peterwwillis »

patcon wrote: post #33
peterwwillis wrote: post #30

A PR announcement of an initiative to form a coalition to investigate making it easier to use security tools that most people don't care about. How thoughtful of you, Google. This wouldn't be an attempt at improving the public's negative view of you with regard to privacy issues, now would it? Funny how Google doesn't offer a messaging service that's secured to a physical device the way Apple does, and these projects…

You seem to imply that there is no real value in the initiative. I humbly suggest you ask the teams doing all the work (Guardian Project, Open Whisper Systems, F-Droid, etc.) how excited they are about this. I suspect it's not as intangible or fuzzy as you imagine. They're expecting real resources and real funding, which will result in real progress for their already-strapped projects.

I'm sure they're very happy to get funding. The fact that they're excited to get money for their projects does not mean their projects have value, or that most people will be affected by them.

Re: Security for the people

#57

Post by hack_edu »

gress wrote: post #53
hack_edu wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it adorable how people buy into the rhetoric and trust that Apple doesn't leverage and track your data. They are a hardware and content company, and they absolutely leverage all the data they can in order to better market you the content they think you might want. Its not just business, its personal. Even with the lions' share of their money coming from hardware sales, so what? Without deep, targeted tracking…

So you simply choose to believe they are lying with no evidence at all. Not much point in discussing anything with you, I guess.

... and we devolve into the same old debate over the definition of metadata

Re: Security for the people

#58

Post by gress »

hack_edu wrote: post #57
gress wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you simply choose to believe they are lying with no evidence at all. Not much point in discussing anything with you, I guess.

... and we devolve into the same old debate over the definition of metadata

Nope. Thst's just you presenting more cynicism without a shred of evidence.
Post reply on HN