> I work for to discredit you personally
If this refers to me, I was not attempting to discredit anyone.
I wanted to ensure people didn't think this was another "they store passwords in plain text because they don't know what a hash function is" stories we see every few days.
If you are interested in password security, why not write an article about Tesco?
one of the first rules i learnt in web development is this, you do not store passwords. (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2010/12/the-dirty-truth-abo...) you never assume that your system will be so secure that no one can hack it.
"We offer people an off-site backup at the cost of trusting a third party with their password."
Yes, this is my main point. People have to learn that they shouldn't be giving out passwords to just about anybody.
I think this guy in the comments here (http://blog.geeksphere.net/2012/09/27/response-to-dropmyemai...) made a pretty good point. Maybe you might want to answer his doubts there?
what i am saying is that there may be some things that you forget about, because we are all humans. and in order to mitigate the risk from us being humans, we should not store passwords in a way that is easily recovered.
Aside from the fallacy, it is a false argument to pose all risk as bad. Given what is presumed to be your idea of acceptable risk, I would expect you to surf the net behind 7 proxies: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/good-luck-im-behind-7-proxies
IFTTT does the same exact thing for some of their "connectors" services. Maybe you should go after them to.
Where IFTTT fails is that they have not IMO adequately explained just how they store these passwords.
http://www.quora.com/How-does-ifttt-securely-store-passwords...
Don't just read some web article talking about "always hash passwords" and repeat it as mantra. This is good practice for 90% of the time but there are definite use cases where having reversible encryption of passwords is necessary.