Turn that around, and look at the number of deaths on the roads. Once this becomes the norm people are going to say "what?! you let any f**ker just get in a car and drive...unaided...what if they're old and blind or with slow reactions? What if they're off their face on drink/drugs? What if they're going too fast in the fog and there's an accident they can't see?" It's going to be considered pretty hilarious.
But the website says not to trust the previous (7.1a - the proper one) version, and to use 7.2 to decrypt only (stupid, because you can do that with 7.1a). The project will be forked and released by some other people. Do you trust them? Why? Or distrust them? Why? What's your criteria either way? Surely you trust the source code, and the audits thereof.
You're taking twitter posts too seriously. That's just speculation based on what appeared on their site the other day, followed by:
"Alyssa Rowan @AlyssaRowan
@munin @0xabad1dea @puellavulnerata I can confirm presence of TrueCrypt duress canary as per 2004 conversation"
Sorry, who the fuck are you?
> Aptitude is not as important as attitude.
Depends. If you want a good developer, for example, aptitude is pretty much everything (as long as you can additionally somehow find it within yourself to more or less obey instructions from superiors, and avoid killing your coworkers).
I see your point, although there are other reasons for that behaviour (two sessions in between your two occasions, where files in the outer/only container are added then deleted).
It would be a reason for Truecrypt to be modified to optionally write random data into outer/hidden containers when they are mounted.
If there's a backdoor I guess we'll discover this when it turns up in a court case.
The Register always were a bit slow. The new version 7.2 is for decryption only, so you can "migrate to bitlocker". Why would you not use the old version for that?
Citation needed.
How would a NSL oblige you to make changes to software? I keep hearing this, but that's not what it's for, plus it can be challenged in court; I'd imagine the ACLU, EFF etc are onto this already.
Do you think 90% of what Google points to/make available/caches is legal everywhere?
So the naughty torrent sites add a "submit a torrent" link (and add a bunch of linux
That's like saying "the mp3 file is NOT corrupt; it's an accurate representation of a dirty cd". Yeah, but I didn't want to listen to that, I wanted to listen to the cd.
Likewise, I want you to tell me if that's my cat, not if it's a dog.
So it's ok that if you google for, say, "schoenberg torrent flac" you get pretty much exclusively pirate sites? Why aren't google blocking these dodgy torrent sites?
> I saw a quad core for 200 baht)
~$10? Really?
2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League
