3 ms·
I don't understand it. Their conclusion says "we challenge the assertion that safety cannot be protected without compromise," which the way I read it means some
by kirillzubovsky 6y ago
I don't understand it. Their conclusion says "we challenge the assertion that safety cannot be protected without compromise," which the way I read it means something along the lines of "we believe it is possible to protect public safety without compromising privacy." But the rest of the letter seems to imply they want to find a way to in fact compromise that privacy.
- CameronNemo 6y agoThey should send patches to Signal and Matrix. We do not know how to implement an encryption-based communication system in the way they request.
- hardlianotion 6y agoThen they should explain explicitly how this can be made to happen. As sibling says, patches welcome.