&gt; But the broader concern is, in fact, that by offering people a secure messenger, you&#x27;re accepting some responsibility for securing traffic that can jeopardize lives if you&#x27;re compromised. You have, I think, a moral responsibility to be as conservative as you possibly can be. When someone gets hurt because this system is flawed --- assuming you ever learn about it --- I think you&#x27;re going to be surprised by where it happened. People with causes you&#x27;ve never even considered will use this thing in ways that, if you knew about, you&#x27;d say &quot;fuck! stop! i like my application but i can&#x27;t let you bet your life on it!&quot;.<p>I agree with you about web crypto, but I disagree with this point. A point that Roger Dingledine (of Tor fame) made a few years ago was that people who are going to say something which their government doesn&#x27;t want them to say are going to say it anyway. If they can&#x27;t communicate using the internet, they are willing to make protests in the streets, to shout and scream to try to improve their world. The job of people making cryptosystems to try to keep such activists safe is to minimise risk and do the best they can. You shouldn&#x27;t think that you&#x27;re responsible for what happens to those people, you&#x27;re doing the best you can for them. But at the end of the day, they are willing to die for their goals and it is disrespectful to ignore that fact.<p>But yes, I agree that the service in question probably needs much more work. And it should probably say &quot;this is still Alpha&quot;.