What were their (Tommy Web and Oliver Scott) official statements on the matter? I mean, besides the generic one that Chiryu gave of them having different goals/visions. Or was that it? If so, it seems that Calyx wanted to continue with providing their privacy products and Nick maybe didn't fully agree with that, and, so, they parted ways. Now he has a carrier. Seems off.
It is puzzling. I finished reading the article, and it could be that Calyx was doing things Nick didn't like, so left (as opposed to Nick doing things that Calyx didn't like). But, without his statement, it's their word against his silence. If this phone company is genuinely what he states, it could be a game changer. But I'm not going to trust it at all, until it's fully proven and he comes out with his statement.
I'm not a fan, either. And, the thing is, we've seen similar companies pop up out of nowhere that claim to be private, but are just honeypots. The fbi did one once, and there is nothing stopping them from doing it again.
I thought about this a lot, and came to the inevitable conclusion that not naming the angel investor is the same as naming them as a government organization or an organization that makes money from privacy erosion. He didn't say it wasn't any of them, which lends to the conclusion that it is, in fact, one of those organizations.
What were their (Tommy Web and Oliver Scott) official statements on the matter? I mean, besides the generic one that Chiryu gave of them having different goals/visions. Or was that it? If so, it seems that Calyx wanted to continue with providing their privacy products and Nick maybe didn't fully agree with that, and, so, they parted ways. Now he has a carrier. Seems off.
Thanks!
It is puzzling. I finished reading the article, and it could be that Calyx was doing things Nick didn't like, so left (as opposed to Nick doing things that Calyx didn't like). But, without his statement, it's their word against his silence. If this phone company is genuinely what he states, it could be a game changer. But I'm not going to trust it at all, until it's fully proven and he comes out with his statement.
I'm not a fan, either. And, the thing is, we've seen similar companies pop up out of nowhere that claim to be private, but are just honeypots. The fbi did one once, and there is nothing stopping them from doing it again.
I thought about this a lot, and came to the inevitable conclusion that not naming the angel investor is the same as naming them as a government organization or an organization that makes money from privacy erosion. He didn't say it wasn't any of them, which lends to the conclusion that it is, in fact, one of those organizations.