Talk:Nadim Kobeissi

Old discussion

Closed discussion regarding an edit dispute, collapsing as no long relevant. Safiel (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this is Nadim Kobeissi - I have no problem with this article being deleted. I'm not sure who wrote it and I'm not exactly comfortable with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaepora (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Hi, this is Nadim again – I've been keeping an eye on this article and apparently it was recently 'improved.' It's just kind of awkward to see myself on Wikipedia, but if the article remains factual and within reason, I don't mind it existing. I guess I'm just a bit frazzled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaepora (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC) To 192.241.213.18: Without exception, all your edits so far have been biased towards removing any potential criticism of the subject of this page or the content discussed, even when this criticism is fair and sourced reliably. About your latest changes: the section you keep removing is relevant, because it's something that Mr. Kobeissi openly said in the media about another service using encryption as their main selling point, and because it's an almost exact mirror example of what happened to him and his service. So, it puts the whole "controversy" into a better perspective. Also, you often "substantiate" your edits by subjective and unsourced statements such as "I don't see how", "seemlingly.." etc. Response from 192.241.213.18 to 82.136.230.79: The criticism is not sourced reliably and here is why: The source is an article that has since been edited to remove the claim (tobtu.com/decryptocat.php), but you insisted on linking to the older version of that article (tobtu.com/decryptocat-old.php) even though it has been edited and replaced. This is a clear example of bias on your part, not on mine. The author has since removed the claim but you insist on mentioning it. You've threatened to report me for vandalism, but from my perspective you are obviously the vandal here. Regarding the second issue: If you think what Nadim said about MEGA puts the controversy into better perspective, consider rewording that section as it currently seems taken out of context. To 192.241.213.18: I sourced the original version because that's where the quote was made. There has been no "retraction" of this statement: it was written and reported by the media in this way. Even if there were a retraction (making a new version of a page is not a retraction), that still wouldn't remove it from history and from the discussion: what's said is said, and the paragraph is discussing an event in the past tense. In fact, this entire "controversy" (if you want to call it that) started with this original DeCryptocat page, so it's perfectly fair to mention it here, as it helps people understand the events in their historical order. You can add a line saying a later version removed said statement, if you think that makes it more balanced (you may also mention that this happened after Nadim paid said author - balancing it even better), but the fact remains that the controversy originated at this page and what was written there. It is not bias on my part: it is linking to the source of the controversy. You may not like it, but that's another thing entirely. As for the second issue, just because you "seem" to think it's taken out of context, that is clearly just your biased opinion. You can hardly call yourself unbiased when all your edits have been made in one direction, and about one subject only. A "Reader Fav" comment quoting the same Forbes article in the Ars Technica "Bad Kitty!" article received the most upvotes of the entire article, so clearly many people thought it added something to the discussion. By the way, please also refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, as you seem to misunderstand what constitutes a reliable source. To 82.136.230.79: You are repeatedly insisting on a one-sided interpretation of the kind of controversy that is common to all security disclosures. Why do you insist on stapling personal attacks to the software author's own biography? These are professional security disclosures that happen in tons of software, not something that's part of Nadim's personal biography. Instead to me it seems like this disclosure scenario has been dug up to personally attack the author of the software in a personal, non-professional context. Even in light of this, most of the writings, including sources I submitted, referred to the incident in the same way hundreds of security disclosures across the software spectrum are referred to. But my sources are removed and you insist on linking only to sources that include personal attacks towards Kobeissi. This is the basis of my accusation of a biased, non-neutral point of view, and why I've referred this article to moderators. To boot, you are attacking me with an accusation of bias due to my edits being centered solely around this article. So are yours. All of your edits except for just one have been equally centered around this article. I've been familiar with this situation and am concerned with the unusual effort to blow up this controversy with a lack of neutrality on a personal biography. Not to mention, you're asking me to refer to Wikipedia's guide on reliable sources, while citing a "Reader Fav" comment on a blog post as a reliable source. Addendum: I believe the security researcher who started the controversy was paid as part of Cryptocat's bug hunt program: https://crypto.cat/bughunt/ To 192.241.213.18: Yes, I also believe he was paid - in fact I mentioned this in my previous response. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the reason the author created a new version of the page. I'm not citing a "Reader Fav" as a reliable source: I didn't use / link to it in the article, did I? I'm simply mentioning it here in the Talk page to convey my point to you that the quote from the Forbes article (which was linked to, and which I consider a reliable source) is adding something to the discussion, by showing that others found it valuable. Would you prefer to mention the controversies surrounding Cryptocat on the Cryptocat wikipedia page rather than here? It seems Nadim and Cryptocat are very narrowly intertwined, so it may not always be simple to separate the two topics entirely, but we could add some of the quotes to the Cryptocat page as well perhaps. I'm not sure what you mean with "personal attacks", but as far as I can see, the quotes given are representing reliably what was reported in the media at the time the issue was reported. If you have quotes that you believe give a more balanced view, then you can add them. I'm not sure which of your sources I removed when you say: "but my sources are removed". It may be more productive if you add sources that you think may balance the events, rather than deleting others. How is the quote by Kobeissi himself (against MEGA) a personal attack? This is something he said himself, about another site, and I think it conveys something about Nadim as a person in relation to the issues that he faced with Cryptocat (and this is his biographical page, after all). Nadim himself didn't seem to have any problem at all with "blowing up" the "mega encryption controversy", ridiculing them in very personal attacks. Please note that I don't have any relationship at all with mega, and am not associated with them in any way. Could you be more constructive and to the point, and say exactly which sources (that you kept removing) are not reliable, and why, and how they do not correspond with Wikipedia's guidelines? Because I'm afraid the discussion will drag on forever if we don't try to be constructive and to the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.136.230.79 (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC) To 82.136.230.79: Why are you accusing Cryptocat/Nadim of paying the author as a bribe to change his article? Bug hunts are common across security software. This is the kind of comment that reveals your own bias. Regarding the "Reader Fav" comment, however: fair enough. My excuses. I'm taking your comments into consideration. Here's what I propose: let me do some edits to the page in a way that I believe restores a more neutral narrative. Then if you disagree with my edits, we can discuss it further. I'll be mindful not to overwrite the perspective you are portraying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.241.213.18 (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC) To 192.241.213.18: I didn't accuse him of "paying the author as a bribe". I simply said what I said, which was that I wouldn't be surprised if that's the reason the author created a new version of the page. I can imagine that he thought it was a nice gesture (to get paid), and decided to be a bit nicer, but I don't know the details. Please don't twist my words. You can edit the page, but do it according to the Wikipedia guidelines. So, don't just remove something because in your personal opinion it's not valid. And don't write opinions, just use reliable sources, as I did. Good luck. 82.136.230.79 (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC) I viewed your recent edit: I'm glad to see it's a more constructive one where you don't simply delete other people's efforts at improving the page. If it's up to me, you can now remove the "no edit" banner and consider the matter closed. Thanks. 82.136.230.79 (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nadim Kobeissi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219190117/http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Free+encryption+software+Cryptocat+protects+right+privacy+inventor/6166181/story.html to http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Free+encryption+software+Cryptocat+protects+right+privacy+inventor/6166181/story.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121217173440/https://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/251837/cryptocat_aims_for_easytouse_encrypted_im_chat.html to https://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/251837/cryptocat_aims_for_easytouse_encrypted_im_chat.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618010832/http://log.nadim.cc/?p=65 to http://log.nadim.cc/?p=65
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130705051050/https://blog.crypto.cat/2013/07/new-critical-vulnerability-in-cryptocat-details/ to https://blog.crypto.cat/2013/07/new-critical-vulnerability-in-cryptocat-details/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please delete this page or at least give it the strong corrections it needs.

Hello, I'm Nadim Kobeissi, the person represented in this page.

This page is very rarely updated and in general, I've asked in the past for it to be removed since I really don't see why I deserve to be on Wikipedia. A lot of people maintain open source projects without being on Wikipedia. I would like, therefore, to repeat my request for this page to be removed. Its existence has always been awkward and strange to me.

In the event that the page is not removed, I would like to ask that it please be at least updated to be at least somewhat accurate. It is currently a pretty wild jumble of temporally disjointed facts that are in many situations incoherent. Since it is bad form to edit your own Wikipedia page, I would suggest that the following changes be made were this page to remain:

Introductory paragraph

Currently reads: "Nadim Kobeissi (born 1990) is a computer programmer and security researcher. He is known for having developed Cryptocat, an open-source encrypted web chat client, and for founding Anapnea, a public access shell network that he operated between 2007 and 2012. Kobeissi is also known for speaking publicly against Internet censorship and Internet surveillance.[3] He currently serves at the New America Foundation's Open Internet Tools Project."

I have largely ceased to work in computer programming since 2015 and have become a full-time researcher in applied cryptography as well as a security software auditor. I have recently submitted my PhD thesis as a student at Ecole Normale Superieure Paris, after studying for 3.5 years at the INRIA PROSECCO research team (http://prosecco.gforge.inria.fr/) and have published a few papers in the interim, all of which are available here: https://dblp.uni-trier.de/pers/hd/k/Kobeissi:Nadim and also https://noiseexplorer.com (publication forthcoming.)

I do not believe that I am well-known for founding Anapnea, which is a pet project I maintained as a teenager, and don't know why that fact is notable. I also have not spoken against Internet censorship or surveillance in any meaningful public way since at least 2014. Furthermore, I only worked at New America for one summer in 2013. Much of this introduction, therefore, pertains to my days as a junior undergraduate and is completely irrelevant today.

Today, I do research in applied cryptography more specifically and computer security more generally. I am an adjunct professor at NYU Paris and direct Symbolic Software (https://symbolic.software), an applied cryptography consulting and software firm. I am slated to defend my Ph.D. thesis (completed at INRIA's PROSECCO lab and accredited by ENS Paris) in Fall 2018.

My course website at NYU can be viewed here: https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/paris-csci-ua9480/

Little box on the right

• Photo is weird and ancient -- please consider replacing with https://symbolic.software/res/img/nadim.jpg
• As previously mentioned, I've never studied psychology. My degrees are in Philosophy and soon a Ph.D. in computer science.
• I believe that Ecole Normale Superieure (Paris) should be added to my alma mater, as it is the institution where I am currently a Ph.D. student and where I am slated to defend my Ph.D.
• My employer hasn't been New America Foundation for more than five years! I was employed by INRIA from February 2015 until July 2018 (the date of completion of my Ph.D. thesis) and am today an adjunct professor at NYU Paris and a director at my own company, Symbolic Software. Therefore, "Employer" should be NYU Paris and "Organization" should be Symbolic Software.
• I never won a Webby Award! Cryptocat received, if I remember correctly, some kind of honorable mention in 2012. But I never won the award, so this should be removed.

Early life and education

This section is not entirely accurate. I did not at any point in my life study psychology: I obtained an undergraduate degree in Philosophy from Concordia University. My major in the Lebanese American University was "undeclared" and I mostly took computer science and philosophy courses there also, for a period of one year, before moving to Canada. I only worked at Microsoft Research for one summer, conducting a regular research internship.

Research and activism

This section is actually totally accurate, but stuck in the distant past. It does not cite any of my research (again, https://dblp.uni-trier.de/pers/hd/k/Kobeissi:Nadim and also https://noiseexplorer.com). It should be noted that I have not been engaged in any political activism since 2014 and do not consider myself politically active today, or likely to be politically active in the future.

I suggest doing one of three things with this section:

1. Remove it entirely and replace it with a "Research" section since I'm not sure my activism work is relevant anymore.
2. Rename it to "Activism" and a have a new research section focusing on https://dblp.uni-trier.de/pers/hd/k/Kobeissi:Nadim and also https://noiseexplorer.com.
3. Keep "Research and activism" but actually add my research and properly classify my activism as having been in the past.

Detention and entrapment attempt

This section is incredibly dramatic for nothing. I was questioned a few times in 2012, back when I was an activist. It should have never been a big deal: the interrogations never went badly, everyone involved was polite etc. -- Sabu and I have also long since made amends and are on good terms. I'd really like to put this juvenile stuff behind me and it's annoying that it's so prominently featured on Wikipedia as if my antics at age 21 represent who I am today.

Cryptocat vulnerability

This section is a bit long-winded, but completely accurate. It seems to me that it is in the wrong article, however: doesn't it belong in Cryptocat's own Wikipedia article? I would suggest moving it there. At least that article legitimately deserves to exist.

Peerio backdoor claims

This section is accurate, but misses that I have since repeatedly clarified that Peerio does *not* seem to have proceeded with their plan to sell white-labeled versions of their products with weakened security, and that I in retrospect strongly regret having publicly complained about the issue since I think it could have been resolved internally. I've made this comment on social media many times.

Whew. I think that's everything. That was really unpleasant to write, but please, if you're reading this and are a bonafide Wikipedia editor, please delete this page or at the very least, fix it so it's not an incoherent jumble of lopsided half-truths about my life.