Given that the TrueCrypt developers are anonymous...
I hadn't realized this was the case. That's pretty interesting.
I'm actually surprised that more pro-crypto, pro-privacy types haven't disappeared behind internet pseudonyms. Certainly if I were running a project that I hoped would be useful for dissidents in an oppressive state, I'd do my best to run it as anonymously as I could manage.
There might be personal risks and project risks in revealing yourself, but very little to gain. Knowing the names of the developers might give people warm fuzzies but it probably wouldn't mean much as far as the true security of the software goes. If the name is "John Doe," that tells you nothing, and if it's "Phil Zimmermann" that still doesn't prove that the NSA hasn't forced him to compromise the stuff.
In the particular case of TrueCrypt, which accepts donations through PayPal and credit cards, the "anonymity" of the project members is likely to be pretty thin. I imagine an American prosecutor could have them found easily enough.
I hadn't realized this was the case. That's pretty interesting.
I'm actually surprised that more pro-crypto, pro-privacy types haven't disappeared behind internet pseudonyms. Certainly if I were running a project that I hoped would be useful for dissidents in an oppressive state, I'd do my best to run it as anonymously as I could manage.
There might be personal risks and project risks in revealing yourself, but very little to gain. Knowing the names of the developers might give people warm fuzzies but it probably wouldn't mean much as far as the true security of the software goes. If the name is "John Doe," that tells you nothing, and if it's "Phil Zimmermann" that still doesn't prove that the NSA hasn't forced him to compromise the stuff.
In the particular case of TrueCrypt, which accepts donations through PayPal and credit cards, the "anonymity" of the project members is likely to be pretty thin. I imagine an American prosecutor could have them found easily enough.