Re: Truecrypt 4.1

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Borked Pseudo Mailed, Nov 29, 2005.

  1. Jeremy wrote:

    > "Borked Pseudo Mailed" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Jeremy wrote:
    >>> "Winged" <> wrote in message news:7253$438aa3c3
    >>>> Perhaps the laws on freeware software differ somewhere. If you will
    >>>> notice the Microsoft license (big commercial company with a lot of
    >>>> money, nice fat target) and they too put in a disclaimer...sue away...
    >>>> No doubt you can make a case to its insecurity, and you even paid for
    >>>> that software....
    >>> One defense that is often used is to assert that the service provider
    >>> (in this case, the authors of TrueCrypt) could not, for the price
    >>> charged, be expected to provide a product that is fool-proof.

    >> Irrelevant to this discussion. TrueCrypt has a proven history of
    >> providing software of some acceptable standard WITHOUT being paid.
    >>> I once sat on a jury where a woman was suing Ford because her
    >>> transmission
    >>> slipped out of "Park" while she left the engine running and dashed into
    >>> a bakery. She came out, found her car slowly rolling backwards toward
    >>> a wall, she got in back of her car and tried to "push" it so as to keep
    >>> it from hitting the wall, and she sustained injuries when she found
    >>> that the car was more powerful than were her efforts to heroically stop
    >>> it!
    >>> When the judge instructed us in the law he made it clear that NO
    >>> product was expected to be free of all problems, and that there was a
    >>> clear distinction between gross negligence and an occasional
    >>> malfunction. Also,
    >>> the plaintiff's attorney argued that the vehicle's operating manual did
    >>> not specifically warn against leaving the vehicle unattended with the
    >>> engine running!

    >> Again irrelevant to this discussion. We're not talking about an
    >> occasional malfunction here. Everyone is fully aware that they occur,
    >> and that TrueCrypt took care of this one acceptably. The debate is about
    >> one person saying that they had absolutely no obligation to even BOTHER
    >> with any problem, and the rest of the world telling him he's wrong.
    >>> We found Ford not to be at fault. The deliberations took no more than
    >>> 15 minutes.

    >> You failed to tell us why. Can we assume that it's because Ford had no
    >> way to know about or prevent this problem? That's fine, but the authors
    >> of TrueCrypt obviously HAVE the ability and time to do so.

    > I DID explain the reason: the judge explained to us that the law did not
    > require failsafe performance of a product.

    Of course not. But it DOES require some degree performance or you wouldn't
    have been there.

    The correct response was that the failure wasn't foreseeable or caused by

    What instructions do you suppose the Judge might have given you if the
    flaw was known for a considerable amount of time, but Ford refused to fix
    it? Just for the sake of argument, lets say that Ford's response to being
    notified about the flaw was to simply stop production of that model. No
    recall, no nothing.

    In nemo's world Ford is somehow magically exempt because they throw up
    their hands and say "ooooops, nevermind".

    > Not that this is entirely relevant to TrueCrypt, but you have argued that
    > they may have legal liability, despite the provisions of their EULA (which
    > the user MUST agree to in order to have the software install itself), and
    > that is just nonsense.

    No it isn't. You offer a product, some damage results from its use, and
    you're faced with the problem of proving you had no knowledge or ability
    to address the problem. Fact of life, like it or not. And it has
    absolutely nothing to do with how much you charge for a product.

    Lets say you had a gun collection and gave them all away to your friends
    for home defense. But the firing pins were all removed. One of your
    friends tried to defend himself one day and gets killed. You knew about
    the missing firing pins but did nothing. You didn't even notify your
    friends. Guess what Jeremy, you're in a world of shit.

    > Besides, why are we debating legal issues on a NG devoted to privacy
    > issues? You think they owe you something, go see if you can find an
    > attorney that will take your case.

    Where did I say they owed me anything? On the contrary I said they did
    exactly what they should have done. We're "square" as far as I'm
    concerned. Don't be mislead by nemo's bombast. He likes to argue for the
    sake of argument.
    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Nov 29, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. nemo outis

    Truecrypt 3.0 has been released

    nemo outis, Dec 10, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Dec 11, 2004
  2. Ari Silversteinn

    Re: Truecrypt 4 Released!

    Ari Silversteinn, Nov 2, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Nov 2, 2005
  3. nemo_outis

    Re: Truecrypt 4.1

    nemo_outis, Nov 26, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Nov 26, 2005
  4. nemo_outis

    Re: Truecrypt 4.1

    nemo_outis, Nov 27, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
    Nov 30, 2005
  5. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Re: Truecrypt 4.1

    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Nov 27, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
    Nov 30, 2005

Share This Page