7 ms·

True, but NSA is mentioned just because it made these discussions more vivid and relevant over the last months. The post doesn't claim that you get an NSA-proof

True, but NSA is mentioned just because it made these discussions more vivid and relevant over the last months. The post doesn't claim that you get an NSA-proof phone. I don't think such thing exists.

spiritplumber 12y ago
The real question is, would there be demand for it?
TeMPOraL 12y ago
Agree, but when discussing privacy/anonymity it would be good if people talked more explicitly about the end result. Because most of the solutions that "will improve your privacy" and/or "security" will do so only against targeted ads and technically inept stalkers. Without calling out limits to which the solution improves our "privacy", we're just creating false sense of security in people.
akavel 12y ago
Not sure if you really did this by accident, or if you're playing dumb, but the article does sound like claiming it'll make a phone NSA-safe. Yeah, now that you said so, I notice that it doesn't explicitly claim so, but first paragraphs are sure sprinkled with the name; if you really cared about the reader's safety, it would be responsible then to explicitly state that this advice does not protect against NSA.
- comzeradd 12y ago
  So I have to explicitly state what this article is not about. Interesting approach...
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Well, if you already mention the NSA to make discussion "more relevant" to recent events (which were about... NSA surveillance), then it would be also good to mention that the advice from your article are not meant to secure you from the NSA :). It's good for people to know exactly how much security they get by following particular advice :).
    - a8000 12y ago
      Just like Private Browsing Modes in Chrome/Firefox tell you that they won't protect from agents.
    - comzeradd 12y ago
      I mention NSA to point out that you should at least avoid Companies that cooperate with them. Nothing more, nothing less.
      - CHY872 12y ago
        What, like your phone company? Hmmmmm...

spiritplumber 12y ago

The real question is, would there be demand for it?

TeMPOraL 12y ago

Agree, but when discussing privacy/anonymity it would be good if people talked more explicitly about the end result. Because most of the solutions that "will improve your privacy" and/or "security" will do so only against targeted ads and technically inept stalkers. Without calling out limits to which the solution improves our "privacy", we're just creating false sense of security in people.

akavel 12y ago

Not sure if you really did this by accident, or if you're playing dumb, but the article does sound like claiming it'll make a phone NSA-safe. Yeah, now that you said so, I notice that it doesn't explicitly claim so, but first paragraphs are sure sprinkled with the name; if you really cared about the reader's safety, it would be responsible then to explicitly state that this advice does not protect against NSA.

comzeradd 12y ago
So I have to explicitly state what this article is not about. Interesting approach...
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Well, if you already mention the NSA to make discussion "more relevant" to recent events (which were about... NSA surveillance), then it would be also good to mention that the advice from your article are not meant to secure you from the NSA :). It's good for people to know exactly how much security they get by following particular advice :).
  - a8000 12y ago
    Just like Private Browsing Modes in Chrome/Firefox tell you that they won't protect from agents.
  - comzeradd 12y ago
    I mention NSA to point out that you should at least avoid Companies that cooperate with them. Nothing more, nothing less.
    - CHY872 12y ago
      What, like your phone company? Hmmmmm...