If Microsoft offers this commercial product claiming that it answers questions for you, shouldn't they be liable for the results?
Honestly my prejudice was that in the US companies get sued already if they fail to ensure customers themselves don't come up with bad ideas involving their product. Like that "don't go to the back and make coffee while cruise control is on"-story from way back.
If the product actively tells you to do something harmful, I'd imagine this becomes expensive really quickly, would it not?
Well, "hacking is not allowed in the Netherlands".
But honestly, I think what they're trying to say is, we're happy if you report issues, but please don't commit a legal offense. This policy will not absolve you.
but would their legal team concur with that interpretation if it embarrasses them in the headlines is the real question. Despite being considered an otherwise odious character, Andrew 'Weev' Auernheimer was prosecuted for essentially doing something that revealed a flaw in a major player while doing nothing illegal. Getting flamed in the media changes a lot.
>Why is that? Do you mean it looks bad in the CV if you leave too soon?
That's one thing, also life happens where it's more beneficial to stay someplace to keep the income coming in than it is to spend hours off the clock finding and preparing a different job. Say a medical problem, or you need to pay to fix damage to your house, or a spouse lost a job, etc.
Plus, even with some absolutely secure digital voting system, there's no way you could explain it to most people. A huge advantage of paper voting is that everyone can understand it works and how it can be attacked.
Otherwise it's going to be even easier to claim the system is rigged or foreign hackers manipulated the vote or whatever, to undermine trust.
I think this is could be a rather complicated feature. It's easy if your second phone is just a linked device like iPad or desktop client, but I imagine this might be very confusing for users. Now you have two phones with signal installed, but one has fewer features and if you lose the main device, you're screwed. This is unexpected for most users.
On the other hand, if the second phone should have the same capabilities as the first one, key management suddenly gets extremely complicated. For instance, each device has to be able to revoke others; what happens if the revoked device had granted access to three other phones, are they revoked as well? Can a device revoke it's "parent" device? And so on. I imagine they avoid this while they can.
Wow, that's interesting. I didn't expect to see Signal listed here.
Disclaimer; Signal is probably my favorite app in in the world. As someone that doesn't use any Facebook owned services, there wouldn't be any other way for me to chat with my friends and family.
But I'd really like to understand what you mean and if I am falling for a scam. How does disclosing my phone number make it insecure and not end-to-end encrypted?
I've put Whatsapp for broadly the same reasons. So not the Op, but my 2 cents:
I cannot listen to any discussion of "privacy" or "encryption" when the software doesn't let me create multiple anonymous accounts on computing device of my choice, and instead it insists on tying itself to my most personal device and ID at the very beginning.
I don't know if Signal does it, but Whatsapp additionally explicitly requires access to your phone contact list. At which point, the end-to-end encryption feels like sarcasm. What's left? You have my identity and you have my social graph. You can tie me to anything you want six ways to Sunday. You've asked for my most treasured things in the first 30 seconds of installation. Everything else feels like ridiculous security theater that makes my life explicitly worse (especially the lack of seamless multi-device support) for positively zero benefit for myself or any of my friends & family.
I understand broad first-principles discussion, but for me personally:
I DON'T care if my discussion with my mother in law is encrypted.
I DO care if everybody I want to chat with gets my phone number and social graph.
Honestly my prejudice was that in the US companies get sued already if they fail to ensure customers themselves don't come up with bad ideas involving their product. Like that "don't go to the back and make coffee while cruise control is on"-story from way back.
If the product actively tells you to do something harmful, I'd imagine this becomes expensive really quickly, would it not?