>If there's a remote way for Google to update the Nest software - there's an exploitable remote way to update the software. This is (quite obviously?) wrong. O

>If there's a remote way for Google to update the Nest software - there's an exploitable remote way to update the software. This is (quite obviously?) wrong. One doesn't imply the other at all in any way shape or form. If this were true, there wouldn't be a single device on the planet, including phones, servers, etc. with remote update functionality that would be secure, ever. Also >If there's a backdoor for law enforcement, there's a backdoor. duh? But I think what you are trying to imply is that "there is a backdoor that criminals could use" - which is also wrong. As long as the implementation is correct and the key isn't leaked, this is completely secure. Of course it'd be insane to have one key being able to unlock essentially all communication within a huge system, because chances are it might be leaked eventually, but that has absolutely zero impact on the fundamental possibility of making this system secure.