3 ms·
My post does not answer that question and it wasn't trying to. The answer to that question is "We don't know". But suggesting that we do an audit of the code to
by beeboop 11y ago
My post does not answer that question and it wasn't trying to. The answer to that question is "We don't know". But suggesting that we do an audit of the code to find out doesn't seem productive, which is what I was responding to.
That's a terrible analogy. It would be more accurate to compare this to aspirin and ibuprofen both sharing an unknown compound known to be capable of easily killing someone when the manufacturer wants it to, then suggesting we audit both aspirin and ibuprofen of their known compounds to make sure they don't have anything capable of killing someone. It doesn't really matter if it does, because you don't want to use aspirin or ibuprofen if you want to guarantee you won't die through someone's arbitrary decision, in the same way you wouldn't use Android on a phone if you want to guarantee security of your data.
- schoen 11y agoMicrosoft isn't trying to hide the behavior of Windows in this respect, independent of whether Windows could contain a backdoor in some part of the code. That's why The Intercept was able to report on what Windows does, by testing it, seeing what the UI says, asking Microsoft for comment, or whatever. The same methods could be used to report about Android's behavior in this respect, in exactly the same way. After all, the article isn't claiming that Windows has a backdoor or that the Pro version secretly also escrows user keys with Microsoft while claiming not to. Backdoors in devices and operating systems are an important risk and an appropriate and interesting topic for researchers and journalists to dig into, but this article is about, essentially, documented or disclosed OS behavior!