61–70 of 72 posts
What do they have to hide? Internal communication is usually great source for historians and posterity. Not to mention parliamentary investigative bodies.
This is the kind of dangerous statement that has done more damage to privacy and security conversation than anything else. Please stop.
India has a very large base of software engineers, security researchers and local cloud builders that would love to contribute to such a project.
Bet you TCS or most likely Infosys will be the implementation partner. Tax money goes in. Crap comes out. As usual. Public will sing praises.
Our beloved PM sending messages via 'Raamdoot' messenger on Aakash tablet will set the tone for entire bureaucracy.
With government support and financial support, india could easily have an indian "whatsapp". WhatsApp isn't technological sophisticated. It's simply a large network. With government/business "tweaking", india could help their own "whatsapp" company take over much of that market from facebook.
Why hand the entire indian market over to facebook and zuckerburg?
There is no reason why large and significant markets shouldn't be dominated by local businesses. Not to say whatsapp should be banned from india, but it's only the incompetence of government/business that cedes their market to foreign companies. This also applies to the EU. It's insane to me that the EU doesn't have their own google, facebook, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have some reference to something that suggests that this is what actually happened? I don't think the US government made Microsoft put weak encryption in export versions of IE because India tested a nuke.
Sorry! I tried so bad to find it but couldn't :-( Someday ..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cookie situation has been exacerbated exactly because of the cookie law. Previously I could just block cookies client-side (like any sane user avoiding cookies would) and every site worked just fine. However, after the cookie regulation, numerous sites just straight up started to block access _unless_ you accept their cookies. Cookie regulation is one of the best examples of how governments meddling into tech has…
This is wrong information. Publishers can show a cookie-free site to all visitors and offer a cookie opt-in for some kind of added value, e.g. "more information for membership". There is no governmental force pushing anybody to produce a website that diplays a "cookie dialog" even before you see what that site is about or if you like it. You are producing a false and absurd story of "governments meddling into tech pr…
Had the regulation at least forbade this behavior, we most likely wouldn't be in this situation.
However, thinking back, I guess it's fair to say that publishers might have implemented this blocking behavior if the governments would only have done a public awareness campaign. In this case, only a minimum set of regulations (ban force acceptance of cookies for static content) would suffice as well.
That aside, it's a bit of a mystery why anyone would choose a proprietary app whose owner could be in cahoots with anybody and you would never know over an open source app, given the entire point of the exercise to ensure your communications private. Facebook is even talking about monetising WhatsApp chats, and governments are talking about forcing Facebook to store the chats so they can be retrieved with a suitable warrant. Yet people still choose use these apps for private communications. Such is the power of the marketing dollar, I guess.
Bet you TCS or most likely Infosys will be the implementation partner. Tax money goes in. Crap comes out. As usual. Public will sing praises.
Not that I like TCS or Infosys, but why does everyone appear to hate them so much? If most organisations appear to go with them, is it because they lack market options at what they offer? On the other hand ,Wouldn’t some other govt sub-org like CDAC etc might get to build this via NIC or whomsoever supervises this?