![]() ![]() ![]() Analyst Christopher Soghoian–who wrote a Times op-ed last fall saying that journalists must learn digital safety skills to protect sources–blogged that Cryptocat had far too many structural flaws for safe use in a repressive environment.Īn expert writing in Wired agreed. Within three months of winning a prize associated with The Wall Street Journal, Cryptocat ended up like a cat caught in storm–wet, dirty, and a little worse for wear. Kobeissi was profiled in The New York Times Forbes and especially Wired each praised the tool. Journalists and many human rights activists, for their part, complain that digital safety tools are too difficult or time-consuming to operate, and, even if one tried to learn them, they often don’t work as expected.Ĭryptocat promised to finally bridge these two distinct cultures. But for years digital safety tools have been so hard to use that few human rights defenders and even fewer journalists (my best guess is one in a 100) employ them.Īctivist technologists often complain that journalists and human rights defenders are either too lazy or foolish to not consistently use digital safety tools when they are operating in hostile environments. Of course, no tool is completely safe, and much depends on the capabilities of the eavesdropper. Technologists wary of government surveillance have been designing free encryption software since the early 1990s. A Lebanese-born, Montreal-based computer scientist, college student, and activist named Nadim Kobeissi had developed a cryptography tool, Cryptocat, for the Internet that seemed as easy to use as Facebook Chat but was presumably far more secure.Įncrypted communications are hardly a new idea. Alhamdulillah! Finally, a technologist designed a security tool that everyone could use. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |