3 ms·
The fact that they call it "Security made in <foo>" is what justifies the generalization. If their security was any good, they'd be explaining how and why (and
by a1369209993 6y ago
The fact that they call it "Security made in <foo>" is what justifies the generalization. If their security was any good, they'd be explaining how and why (and how they plan to remain incapable of backdooring it), not invoking cognitive biases of innocence-by-association.
- bwoodcock 6y agoIn what was was today's announcement not exactly what you're saying it should have been? It explained exactly how and why the data isn't being collected, no?
- a1369209993 6y agoPoor phrasing, I suppose - I was using the generic "they" (changed from generic "you", actually) - I wasn't making any claims about whether the current announcement was a "Security made in <foo>" claim, just that all such such claims are (at best) PR stunts.