Open Fabs

Zenaan Harkness zen at
Sun Aug 2 16:22:43 PDT 2015

On 8/2/15, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l at> wrote:
> We will not get 50% of the population to use semi-good-crypto.

Assuming you define TBB as semi-good crypto, the block AIUI to Mozilla
incorporating Tor plugins/ mods into Firefox by default is simply that
the Tor network cannot scale Internet wide. Yet. Because of course you
know then we'd all be secure.

But what do you define as semi-good crypto?

> Far more
> than that just do not give any damns at all.

Agreed. But they might give some dollars for shiny new handset.

> Legal protection for those that make insecure shit is so huge that society
> is literally stacked against privacy as a whole. The "protected-consumer"
> culture has led to widespread market failure - rather than think people buy
> with their hearts. Simply put, "Think Different" turned into "Don't think
> at all".

You think you think? Bah! Thinking's overrated.

> That said, I don't see why there's no company attempting to address the
> niche of "I want it truly secure".

Because there's no such thing as "truly secure" and marketing to the
"I want it truly secure" crowd would likely result in deception, which
due to the overly paranoid nature of such crowd, would quickly
deconstruct the bullshit anywya.

> Wouldn't governments like if the US
> doesn't spy on them?

Making a lot of assumptions there - such as "there are few enough
politicians who are compromised (with sex or money), that the rest can
stand strong in the face of the few".  Although the very recent French
and Italian delegations to Crimea suggest at least some are capable of
on the ground analysis in the face of the rest of their respective
parliaments. Who knows, next we might see Greece running a referendum
so the people can decide what their government should be doi... oh,
hang on...

> Wouldn't large companies' officers be very happy with
> a secure e-mail/voice call system?

And a way to get rid of those compromising images held by their
respective national governments...

> If it runs Android apps (protip: Android's JVM is open source) in a more
> secure manner (like, uhm, in-hardware-sandboxing? Libre Hypervisor CPU with
> the OS on it, and a jailed EvilCorp coprocessor that does the Android
> stuff?) it doesn't seem to take that much to build a smartphone nowadays
> (looking at Chinaphones, that is).

<slaps forehead>
Of course! We've all missed that obvious for so long - put JVM in a
secure open source hypervisor and the world will be safe. That would
even encourage me to be less sarcastic.

> And, many of the people that want it "truly secure" will understand that
> the products will cost more than a mass-produced NSA sponsored unit.

Perhaps Google could kick this project off - they already own Android
and they must have the dollars. In fact Intel could produce the CPU,
Foxconn can build the handsets, Google can install the software and
the NSA can deliver them to us^B^B^B sorry, the Postal Service can
deliver them to us.

We have a plan for a better world. It starts with money. Money and
trust. Trust. But not without money. More money. And technology.
Technology and money. I'll leave you to contact Goog to start this
ball rolling.

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list