4 ms·
Agreed. "Can't" implies they are unable to do it at all, which means they will not give the information to random LEO requests, because they simply can't. "Won
by csunbird 7y ago
Agreed. "Can't" implies they are unable to do it at all, which means they will not give the information to random LEO requests, because they simply can't.
"Won't" implies they select who they want to give the data to, which mean they probably give that data to other actors, without users even knowing about it.
- pjkundert 7y agoIt's surprising to me that so many people give the benefit of the doubt to enterprises, when they (at huge effort and expense) emit "mealy-mouthed" rebuttals that leave open the possibility that they actually are doing evil. These people aren't stupid, and their legal and PR teams understand the fine details of the English language. It says what they mean to say, not what we wish it would say. They "Won't". Not that they "Can't".
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago>It surprising to me that so many people give the benefit of the doubt to enterprises, when they (at huge effort and expense) emit "mealy-mouthed" rebuttals that leave open the possibility that they actually are doing evil. And the alternative is an organization which has an absolutely stellar track record at not doing evil (obvious sarcasm should hopefully be obvious). Neither party is can be taken at at face value here.
- daveFNbuck 7y agoHow would a can't be possible here? They're being asked to modify the client code to enable surveillance. A client can't be secure against changes to its own code, and a protocol can't be secure against the client sharing the data it receives.