[Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox's pursuit of perfection undermines its goals
On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 00:39 -0500, Nick Daly wrote:
> I know it seems slow at times, but there are a lot of reasons we need to
> do (certain features) right the first time. The best example is the
> Haystack Project [0] which, unfortunately, leaked user information and
> actually did more harm to users because they *thought* their information
> was protected when it wasn't. The worst thing we can do is to project
> an incorrect *image* of security on an insecure project (personal
> security theatre).
I agree on the importance on accuracy in our image of security. I don't
know if we or anyone can responsibly project an image of *perfect*
security. Absent perfect security, an image of "avoiding the risks of a
centralized server, but still containing risks" seems responsible to me.
I'm not sure what more we /could/ say, since no one can predict all
possible problems.
If the "worst thing we can do is to project an incorrect *image* of
security on an insecure project", I contend we should consider not
projecting an image of perfect security, which I consider impossible. I
suggest we say we are imperfect but avoid the flaws of a centralized
server and the code is Free so you can read and modify it.
Besides, many users don't need serious security. For them "right" may
have a low threshold.
> If we need to do it right the first time, doing it right takes a long
> time, and we need to get it out the door now, then leaving those
> features out of the first release might be the right approach. Doing it
> wrong (misleading people with our image) does a lot more harm than doing
> it slowly (because people *do* trust us to do it right the first time, I
> know I do).
"right" doesn't /have/ to take a long time, especially for some users,
as you said.
I agree with the image issue. Projecting perfect security when we don't
have it could cause irreparable problems. As I wrote above, I believe
projecting imperfect security will help many people while being more
accurate, in my opinion at least.
Reply to: