News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google Wave “is anti-Web” by axod on Friday June 05, 2009 @04:57PM (#643966)
>> "IM protocols have barely any security" -- given that this discussion is regarding an IM protocol with a built-in high-quality security infrastructure, I don't see how this statement is at all valid.

I was talking about the main IM protocols in use today - yahoo/msn/aim.

You'd be surprised @ plain text. It quickly adds up. I do around 3.5TB of plain text IRC/http a month, and if I could reduce that, I would. If we were all using jabber instead of IRC my bandwidth would be more like 10TB. Quite a difference.

>> "E-mail has optional security for things that do matter, namely GPG/PGP for client <-> client and the STARTTLS extension to SMTP for server <-> server. Wave, as a replacement for E-mail, provides pervasive security."

That comes back to my original comment - I'm not sure it solves any real world problem users have. Users don't care about security like that.

Re:Google Wave “is anti-Web” by youngian on Friday June 05, 2009 @06:18PM (#644124)
>> "That comes back to my original comment - I'm not sure it solves any real world problem users have. Users don't care about security like that."

I'm not sure that's accurate. Maybe users don't care about security, but I would venture that's because they don't know any better. I don't think most people understand that their emails and IMs are crossing the web in plaintext, or just how easy it would be for someone unintended to get access to those messages. I don't think it's an informed lack of concern.