> The question is: what do they expect those companies to do?
All companies (not just tech companies) always comply with whoever is currently in charge. A business just cannot operate without complying with the law.
People tend to forget that, and also people ultimately tend to pick the fat paycheck over the ideals.
It's an ironical recurrence: tech workers complain loud and often but they're still there everyday implementing and optimizing the same "nightmare" they complain about.
As usual, i'd take this kind of articles with the proverbial grain of salt. There always are a number of workers that are frustrated and very vocal about that, and a number of workers that are not frustrated at all but aren't vocal about it.
Media has a tendency to exaggerate one of the two numbers.
But which one is the largest? We don't know for sure and we can't hardly know.
Also, why is "tech workers' opinion" more important than other workers opinion?
> This #ows movement empowers real people to create real change from the bottom up. We want to see a general assembly in every backyard, on every street corner because we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better society.
Maybe at some point those people will understand that high-school approach doesn't work in the real world.
Look at the amount of change they brought, look at the amount of change that a single person like Donald Trump has brought (for better or worse, this is not an endorsement).
Nowadays all of the messaging pipeline on my phone is closed source and proprietary, and thus unverifiable at all.
The iPhone operating system is closed, the runtime is closed, the whatsapp client is closed, the protocol is closed… hard to believe any claim.
And i know that somebody’s gonna bring up the alleged e2e encryption… a client in control of somebody else might just leak the encryption keys from one end of the chat.
Closed systems that do not support third party clients that connect through open protocols should ALWAYS be assumed to be insecure.
>Closed systems that do not support third party clients that connect through open protocols should ALWAYS be assumed to be insecure.
So you're posting this from an open core CPU running on an open FPGA that you fabricated yourself, right? Or is this just a game of one-upmanship where people come with increasingly high standards for what counts as "secure" to signal how devoted to security they are?
it doesn't need to be open source for us to know what it's doing. its properties are well understood by the security community because it's been RE'd.
> a client in control of somebody else might just leak the encryption keys from one end of the chat.
has nothing to do with closed/open source. preventing this requires remote attestation. i don't know of any messaging app out there that really does this, closed or open source.
also, ironically remote attestation is the antithesis of open source.
reply