SOME of ours readers are security folks. They mostly agree with what we've published about conflating "fake trust" (authorisation from monopolies) with the user's trust (in effect not outsourcing trust to some dodgy, military-connected firms) and the idea that encryption between node and server (e.g. Facebook user and Facebook servers) is somehow "privacy", never mind if Facebook abuses all the data it gathers and moreover sells this data. This isn't privacy. This is a joke. The media helps these monopolies mislead the public, leaving people utterly confused about what privacy even means. Google says it's improving GMail privacy/security while harvesting, scanning and sharing with governments contents of E-mails. Is that privacy? Microsoft puts back doors in Windows (there's evidence), but at the same time it claims to deliver "security updates". What does security mean in this context? National security? As in US access to all of the files and communications of innocent people? Even on their own desktop/laptop?
Recently, in light of the Guix petition, we've received some mail alarming us about GnuPG (it is among the signatures there, in effect seeking the ousting of Richard Stallman from the GNU Project -- a project that he founded).
"GnuPG is showing signs of compromise by outsiders," a reader recently told us. "I think we need to start looking at alternatives before the spyware starts to (inevitably) creep in. If [Werner] Koch can accommodate Yubico, he can accommodate the NSA and friends."
The Yubico Authenticator is developed on Microsoft (NSA/PRISM) servers with proprietary software and the product itself isn't trustworthy; it's proprietary itself. Yubikey is expensive snakeoil which raises the access barrier, both technically and fiscally (how many in poor African countries would shed a grand or two for a bunch of glorified "keys"?). Who stands to benefit? Probably the deep-pocketed (state-subsidised) surveillance giants that have redefined "security" and "privacy" their own way (they want us to assume they're guardians of both, not agents or facilitators of digital imperialism).
In the coming days we shall be writing about, then exploring, a plethora of alternatives. They do exist, not many people use these, and the media certainly isn't giving them the publicity they deserve. A lot of media coverage is nowadays up for sale; those who raise more money can dominate publishers or even so-called 'influencers' in social control media (to get paid-for 'endorsements'). ⬆