Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Pick one - security, or an admin who can save your account.

There's a simple way to eat your cake and have it too, though: put a copy of your passwords in a safe-deposit box. Passwords don't strictly have to be private to protect you from would-be attackers—they just have to only be accessible to people who have absolutely no incentive to help any would-be attacker.




But people, especially in a service industry, NEVER have no incentive not to help anyone. People are helpful by nature, and easily conned.


Hmm; what you're saying is true, so I think I phrased my statement a bit wrong. In general, yes, people do want to help. But your bank just isn't in the business of knowing what's in its safe-deposit boxes, just like Tarsnap isn't in the business of knowing what's on its servers.

The whole business model of a safe-deposit box relies on other people not being able to get into them without the owner's consent—so if anyone, including the bank itself, took a peek in there, that would instantly lose them all the trust they had ever accrued as a safe-deposit-box provider—and thus a lot of money. They have much more of an incentive to keep your data private than they have an incentive to help those who want it, because keeping your data private is what keeps them in business. That's the meaning I was going for.


> But people NEVER have no incentive not to help anyone.

The rare triple-negative.


That's nonsense - people don't NEVER have no incentive not to help anyone.

Bam! Quad-negative! Top that.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: