Security Nihilism Debate

On what grounds? on what threat models? on what attacks? what alternatives?

It's pretty crazy that we don't have something similar now. And possibly with better security.

I can't think of any other technologies that have waited for the security aspect to be solved, can you?

Saying you can't be secure at all isn't a solution.https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2021/07/20/a-case-a...

Not only does it obliterate users' security but it introduces a potentially unreliable point of failure. Sometimes the hack is worse than the problem it solves. I hope they're being extremely upfront with users about how this works, not that most users will really understand the implications...

This is good for security overall... think about it, if we sent all of our stuff to the NSA, they would find security bugs and fix them for us.

This is an absolutely terrible take. Just because the mechanism doesn't provide perfect security doesn't mean a) it provides none, or b) it isn't even trying to provide security.

Lack of security is likely working as intended, be it on the system level or with encryption often relying on certificate authorities. Fixing any of this would likely result in the intelligence agency threat scenario of "going dark". Its the brave new world we live in where zerodays are valuable investments for governments.

Why wouldn't he make it truly secure by hardening the most used features?They don't even seem to work on it. There is this optional encryption, but nobody seems to care about it. Simultaneously, they present themselves as safe and secure.He might be a genius.He might also be an evil genius.

The fact that they are popular means it's an argument against making a more secure version? You are implying the problem is solved perfectly already. They are popular because they are needed, not because they cannot be advanced.