Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

"in the interest of the security of sources", if true, is actually a pretty good reason.


sort by: page size:

They gave two reasons, which are risk of security and eating your own dogfood. Those seem reasonable.

Can anyone explain what the point of this article is? I read it and can't see one.


What good reason is that? To me that seems a bit intrusive.

I'm also curious as to which countries require this.


It's to keep sensitive information from falling into the wrong hands.

Hence why it's important that everybody use it for innocuous reasons. Benefit is two-fold: it helps users with something to hide (eg. journalists, human rights activists) stick out less, and in the event you have something to hide, makes it less suspicious for you to use.

It makes the authority safer from being criticized that they should have done something. That of course is the real purpose.

I believe it's also a security measure.

The other benefit is that a widespread attack, which you need to swing results, has to involve lots of people. Pretty much guaranteeing a leak.

Because it IS already an issue.

For example when CIA/NSA tools leaked, one of them had precisely this purpose.


To legitimize the suspicion. That's always been the point.

The hope of not letting thousands of people being easily attacked by some shady organization, maybe?

Security implications, I would imagine.

There is no good reason. It just gives them the feels. Countless super innocent people get denied, while spies make it through.

It sort of is a reason to use it more often though, no? If ordinary people start using the protocol, it helps to obscure the activity of journalists or other targeted groups.

They say it is to protect us, but I suspect it is actually to protect themselves.

The benefit is to normalize unreasonableness. And to add another scene of "doing something" to the never-ending production of Security Theater.

I think that's the point isn't it? To provide extra-safe assets for people who need it.

To prevent commissioning of crimes is probably the best reason. For example smuggling in drugs, arranging escapes, harassing victims, etc.

Though it seems like it would be ok to say "ONE of the reasons we do this is security" because it really does seem like they can get some decent security stuff out of doing some of the things they do. It's probably not the primary purpose though, more like a happy accident?

Though I'd guess for people who don't follow any of this close (like the vast majority of people) hearing "this will make you safe" probably works quite well, and that's why he's told to say these things.


To make it less questionable.
next

Legal | privacy