From 3fa693542e52eec866977ac9669c79af46b4ef83 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Owen Jacobson Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:57:26 -0400 Subject: Clearer bottom line. --- wiki/ethics/linkedin-intro.md | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) (limited to 'wiki/ethics/linkedin-intro.md') 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 There is no ethics body to complain to; had the developers of Intro said "no", they would very likely have been replaced by another round of developers who would help -- cgit v1.2.3