Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I didn't write it, you're going to have to take that up with the author, on what his intended use case was for his website.

Sounds like he did what you said, anyway.




I'm not talking about 'StavrosK's service here. I'm talking about your evaluation of threat models, which seems to include a great big exception around "well, if people aren't using it the way I want them to, then to hell with them."


Well yeah, actually that's how threat models are built -- you can't protect users from themselves, if a user wants to store all their passwords in a greeting card website, in the little "special message to your loved one" field, there's realistically no way you can stop them.

Your greeting card website's threat model doesn't include this.


Reductio ad absurdum helps no one, you know.


It helps illustrate how what you said isn't clear or true.


Does it? It seems like you'd need to argue that this notional greeting card website made some specific claim of security around the content of that field.


No, because Dead Man's Switch doesn't do that either.


How do you reach that rather startling conclusion?


No, I'm done. The author of the tool has come out and explained things to you directly, and if you're going to keep playing games, you can do that with someone else.


Who's playing games? I've read the comments in this thread from 'StavrosK. You and he don't appear to be talking about the same service, and he's the dev. But if you don't feel any purpose would be served by your continued participation, that's your call to make, of course.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: