summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorOwen Jacobson <owen.jacobson@grimoire.ca>2013-10-29 21:57:26 -0400
committerOwen Jacobson <owen.jacobson@grimoire.ca>2013-10-29 21:57:26 -0400
commit3fa693542e52eec866977ac9669c79af46b4ef83 (patch)
treeeec5ffa52641f89f33af95479686fdbf21db59a9
parentf12d129becd0a54f2094611a0956128fe4b2fc83 (diff)
Clearer bottom line.
-rw-r--r--wiki/ethics/linkedin-intro.md5
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/wiki/ethics/linkedin-intro.md b/wiki/ethics/linkedin-intro.md
index b3b9d0c..dad2304 100644
--- a/wiki/ethics/linkedin-intro.md
+++ b/wiki/ethics/linkedin-intro.md
@@ -174,6 +174,11 @@ was or to understand who vetted the results.
## The Bottom Line
+_If_ LinkedIn Intro works as built, and _if_ their security safeguards are put
+into place, then Intro exposes its users to much greater risk of password
+compromise and helps them expose themselves to surveillence, both government
+and private. If either of those conditions does not hold, it's worse.
+
The software industry is young, and immature, and wealthy. There is no ethics
body to complain to; had the developers of Intro said "no", they would very
likely have been replaced by another round of developers who would help