Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Anonymous backs new encrypted social network to rival Facebo

Page 1 of 1 [ 3 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

17 Jun 2015, 1:02 pm

RT.com wrote:
A new social network has been launched, vowing more transparency, security, and privacy than Facebook and other social media giants. Backed by the hacktivist group Anonymous, it will encrypt all messages, shielding data from governments and advertisers.

At first glance, Minds.com appears similar to any other social network. It provides a person's followers with the latest updates, allowing their friends to comment and promote posts.

But the major difference exists behind the scenes. Minds.com doesn't aim to profit from gathering data. In fact, its goal is the opposite – to encrypt all messages so they can't be read by governments or advertisers....

RT.com: "Anonymous backs new encrypted social network to rival Facebook" (June 17, 2015)
http://www.rt.com/news/267835-social-ne ... mous-minds


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

17 Jun 2015, 4:58 pm

So... you store your private key on your device, and the site maintains a list of public keys and stores the encypted data? That's the only viable way I can see of doing it, but it's going to get expensive, having to store a copy for everyone it's sent to. That's workable for email and chat, but not for forums or blogs.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

17 Jun 2015, 5:54 pm

It is still a centralized store. A federalised network would be better.

The public are also bit naive. They want to show off, to people they don't know, then act surprised when they find it elsewhere in the pubic domain.

Also an endorsement from Anonymous doesn't mean much, for the simple fact that Anonymous is a moniker, not a single group of people. Anyone can be Anonymous.

To me social networking for social networking sake is pointless. Social networking that is based around objectives and tasks is much more appealing. The popular networks whilst can be used for this, aren't necessarily the best fit.

If you have no democratic data, that means that the usefulness of the network falls through as far as the above point. The problem is not data mining persay, it is transparency around it and also doing something useful with it.

Facebook as a model is surprisingly weak, compared to say Google's directer approach, it is simply that the advertisers are hyped as well. It is a massive bubble which will burst eventually. Right now though twitter is struggling, comparatively (they don't even compete on the same level and share price has fallen). Facebook is still massive, but investing in other venture is insurance. The whole social media world relies on fickle human fads.