News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A Formal Security Analysis of the Signal Messaging Protocol. Parent comment

Re:A Formal Security Analysis of the Signal Messaging Protocol by lorenzhs on Tuesday November 08, 2016 @09:17AM (#12900354)
That's true, but this isn't one. This is what respectfully disagreeing looks like. Ad hominem would be "No, you're an idiot and people don't care what you think just because you disagree with choices they made". That would have been inappropriate.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A Formal Security Analysis of the Signal Messaging Protocol by JoeAltmaier on Tuesday November 08, 2016 @09:20AM (#12900385)
The implication was there - that a point was made 'only' because of an os they didn't like. Its Ad-Hominem. It was pretty far from 'respectfully disagreeing'
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A Formal Security Analysis of the Signal Messaging Protocol by pessimizer on Tuesday November 08, 2016 @09:35AM (#12900512)
That isn't ad hominem, though. An attack that implies personal qualities isn't the same as an attack on the person.

I think the point is that someone who is choosing an OS that is controlled by a particular company has chosen to trust that company.

[ Parent | on HN ]