Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 8th Jun 2013 17:02 UTC
Legal I didn't want to put this in the article on the coordinated PR campaign, but the fact that one company refuses to cooperate with the US government in the way Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and others were more than willing to do, is very, very important. This means that the argument "but we had to do the things we did because Washington told us to" holds no water. Twitter's refusal proves that the others did not have to say yes - they chose to do so. Whenever someone - a corporate PR person, company blogger, or fanboy - tells you Microsoft, Apple, or Google had no choice, all you need to say is "Twitter".
Thread beginning with comment 564281
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Twitter isn't a good guy
by pepa on Mon 10th Jun 2013 06:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Twitter isn't a good guy"
pepa
Member since:
2005-07-08

Are protected tweets only reaching people in a secure and encrypted way, or do they just happen to be only sent to approved subscribers?? In the latter case, I think it would be peanuts for the NSA to listen in.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Protected tweets are just mean that they only appear in approved subscribers feeds rather than anyones. However Twitter defaults to SSL so those protected tweets are still covered with end-to-end encryption. Which means they're actually just as secure as webmail.

Though I should point out that I'm not advocating using Twitter as a secure means of communication. There's far far better systems for such things. My point was just that I doubt the NSA would have means to eavesdrop on protected tweets without either being an authorized subscriber or having access to Twitter's servers (or unless they can create their own CA-signed certs and perform a man in the middle attack)

Reply Parent Score: 2