• 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    Thanks!

    It is puzzling. I finished reading the article, and it could be that Calyx was doing things Nick didn’t like, so left (as opposed to Nick doing things that Calyx didn’t like). But, without his statement, it’s their word against his silence. If this phone company is genuinely what he states, it could be a game changer. But I’m not going to trust it at all, until it’s fully proven and he comes out with his statement.

    • Turret3857@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      I feel the same, I would love to support this new company if it is to be believed, but ive already been left in the dark once. Not a fan of it.

      • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        I’m not a fan, either. And, the thing is, we’ve seen similar companies pop up out of nowhere that claim to be private, but are just honeypots. The fbi did one once, and there is nothing stopping them from doing it again.

        I thought about this a lot, and came to the inevitable conclusion that not naming the angel investor is the same as naming them as a government organization or an organization that makes money from privacy erosion. He didn’t say it wasn’t any of them, which lends to the conclusion that it is, in fact, one of those organizations.