| > I just wish that user would tell me what the real issue is. […] I hope I can fix whatever the real issue is. It is exactly what the parent already told you. That’s it. That’s “the real issue”. There is nothing more. Everything I’ve said already is, in fact, what the issue is. Please stop trying to read between the lines. That you refuse to accept mine and others’ arguments about PEK and ZKE and SSDs is one thing. It’s an entirely different and more alarming thing when you refuse to accept that these issues are the issues and insist on continuing to spin a story about how I must be really angry about something different when other people are telling you it’s not so. I also can’t even imagine how it would’ve seemed like a good idea to fabricate a quote and attribute it to me in the way you just did. You did this on some of your earlier posts, too. As for me, I don’t use eristic techniques, I don’t tell intentional falsehoods, and I don’t do things as you imply in saying I’ll “show up in another couple days and make this claim again”. Anyone is free to look to my comment history and see that I’ve only made a handful of comments here about Backblaze[0], and in all cases, I try to make sure my comments are fair and well-researched and backed with citations whenever possible. I understand how this company is like your baby and so it may feel emotionally like I’m trying to kill your baby with criticism, but please understand that that is not my goal. My goal is, and always has been, to keep users secure. If that means I can help a receptive vendor improve their software, excellent. If that means I have to warn users to stay away from a vendor who behaves poorly, that sucks, but I still feel an obligation to do that too. If some of the negative publicity gets a vendor to start doing the right thing, good. That’s the whole reason I have to talk about these things. It certainly doesn’t do me any good otherwise. [0] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... |
Not at all! I agree with you COMPLETELY. You want a zero knowledge backup product, Backblaze offers that and makes a large amount of money from it (millions of dollars annually actually), and we think you (csnover) should use that product because that's what you want. I understand the arguments, and you are COMPLETELY correct and I accept your arguments - that's why we built it and sell it, because you are correct.
One of our OTHER product offerings (in addition to the zero knowledge backup offering) is to host public websites. Public websites just can't have zero knowledge. We offer both products SEPARATELY, I've explained this over and over again, but you'll just post in two more days saying "Backblaze thinks zero knowledge is bad" (spectacularly false). Public websites (by definition) cannot be zero knowledge, do you comprehend this?
> I don’t tell intentional falsehoods
You keep saying we don't have a zero knowledge backup system (wow, spectacularly false) and say we think zero knowledge is bad (again, spectacularly false since I've stated repeatedly that zero knowledge systems are THE BEST security). Then you say you don't tell intentional falsehoods. Come on, it's obvious something is going on.
> I’m trying to kill your company with criticism
Is that it? Why do you care? Did we do something to you? I have a hard time believing you put in all this effort because you flipped a coin and decided you would try to kill Backblaze. Why us? I can't fix what I don't know about.
I look forward to your 200 future posts about how Backblaze doesn't offer zero knowledge backups.