[seanmcgregor]

Honestly, this is a huge and important question that we have thought about extensively. In the end it comes down to what people want to be public, and what they want to be private. The absence of a content search feature on Facebook is a good example. People don't want their personal lives to be indexed and searchable for all time. This fixes that problem and allows a person to manage their communications well after they have said it.

An API for search is a secondary concern, and is one I want to revisit in the future. Privly allows you to assert your own copyright even when it is displayed on other sites, and the issues surrounding this are more troublesome for the future of the web than taking away Facebook's ability to crawl my chats to my significant other.

I also allude to the Arab Spring at several points in our materials, but this is dangerous territory for a small band of programmers to wade into. I prefer to keep things apolitical, Egyptian flags aside.

I went Kickstarter on this to: 1. Make it more secure 2. Get open source support and expertise 3. Start a real discussion around these issues that can guide the development of the project

We will not break the web.

[peterwiese]

the main problem i have with your concept is that it's not a solution but merely a workaround. what you're doing is basically hijacking different communication service providers like facebook and twitter to exchange encrypted content. this means that your service depends on the mercy of these providers, since they could easily ban the urls/ips your service posts instead of the original text. so, if this should ever become large scale, facebook & co would just break your service because they have no interest in this kind of usage of their platform.

--------

you didn't keep this apolitical at all. i only talked about an arab spring because you did so in your video. and i agree that your platform doesn't add any value for this kind use case, except the ease of use maybe, which i think isn't really a concern if you're operating in the political underground.

--------

if you don't want facebook to own your content and personal information, don't give it to them in the first place. this is obviously easer said than done. but your service creates just another dependency while solving nothing.

[seanmcgregor]

They could ban the URLs, but not the IPs since the IPs come from the clients. Regardless, it is politically difficult for FB or other scrutinized companies to block a certain kind of hyperlink whose only purpose and use is to protect ones own content. The best thing Facebook could do for our funding is block us. I don't want to discuss workarounds, although they exist, because our ultimate goal is to move this system from a hack to a web standard. Sites could choose not to support it, but if there is enough pull into the system, they won't have a choice.

--------

We implicitly endorsed democratic movements like the Arab Spring by highlighting its use case, but you'll have to forgive me for going with a use case that is more likely to get media attention. The Arab Spring use case is stronger than you are letting on. Privly can facilitate group encryption keys, where only the members of the group can read or share the content. This allows the use of applications like the Facebook event system mashed together with email invitations and public tweets. Most people don't know how to use PGP, and group coordination is difficult without an easy to use and ubiquitous secure sharing system.

-----

"if you don't want facebook to own your content and personal information, don't give it to them in the first place." Agreed, but they can have my links.