[mpowers]

That said, the js crypto isn't the part I'm worried about. It's all the scripting vulnerabilities to guard against in the browser.

Still, if anyone has mission-critical privacy they want to protect, we expect there will be hardened native clients to choose from.

Most posts from most people are going to be public anyway. We keep the public stuff public, but signed and search-indexable, and we let you do private stuff securely if you want to.

[e12e]

I think it's a bad idea to mix a system that isn't expected to be secure, with ones that are expected to be secure.

Just like how sending a gpg encrypted email to (some) users of hushmail wasn't secure, because in the end hushmail encouraged insecure handling of the private keys.

In the end, the only rational, informed choice, is to regard the whole system as (in)secure as its least secure part.

If there is to be any point to a "secure social network", the trust you can place in the network (implementation) should be at least as high as the trust you place in those you share with?

Will you be able to take reasonable steps to prevent private keys to be written to (unencrypted) swap, for instance?

Promising a "secure" social network, kind of implies that data you share is secure from your spouse, for example.