Has to be more than fine that it was “both and” for a while. The same insight that produced the clarity in these representations made that choice.
Plus there is another Safe Network out there or there was at one time and it was if memory it was connected to a largish defense or security firm. Might go by Safenet but imagine it may become a real problem at some point. I liked “SAFE Network” more than any other choice but was surprised when it was confirmed. Also going to be hilarious at launch when the ‘authorities’ claim its the opposite of “safe” that it was sponsored by ISIS and Al Qaeda by way of Scottland then with the ‘authorities’ following up with a supervised babysat version they push as SAFE Network or an improved santized SAFE both from work that has been forked just prior to launch- they might have one ready at SAFE’s launch even as they use internalyl or a varient internally. Not surprised if they launch a slew of dummies to try to abort the mindshare at launch.
They will surely stupidly want a compromised version internally but just as Hillary learned from the Petraeus experience and had her own email system and just as Trump learned from Obama’s experience of having a knife wielder break into the White house and chose his own abode these people will want SAFE for their own use. Still not surprised if they also use a mercinary firm to go after the name at or just before launch try to injunct the launch over the name to buy time and still use all of the above. Hope the code still leaks out and takes off because its life and death for the world that we have something like this to check the technocrats. Also suspicious if the don’t try some BS- how ofter do they go after TOR- although its a little harder when they developed it.
There is one thing that will hold to an extent. The point of people having fire arms or anything that makes them feel safe or empowered in this day or even in Hitler’s as in Switzerland (granted it would have been a bit like German civil war in the midst of a war despite deep ideological differences) is that a people who feel safe (not gripped by fear) are in fact much safer and can act. That is even if technically not safe one by one, think fire arms vs armed drones, beating the technology of fear means the technocrats are cannot act with impunity and face retrospection and some level of accoutability or possible total accountability.
sounds good
looking forward to it