9 ms·

Completely agree on all points - it also kind of buries the lead with regard to the rather cliche false equivalency Up there with [cash is used for bad things,

• bobbylarrybobby 6y ago
  FYI https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/bury-the-lede-versus-lead https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/bury-the-lede-...
  • pentaphobe 6y ago
    oh wow - thanks! I'll remember this next time I'm feeling haughty about common malapropisms :-|
• buran77 6y ago
  It's the typical "think of the children" or "but the terrorists" approach. Everyone is treated like a criminal because some of them could be. Calling the users "criminals" makes it harder to defend them at first glance because the first reaction is "you're defending criminals". And attaching a number to this, even an impossible to support statistic, is meant to make the statement more believable, everyone likes nice, round numbers. Of course they hope nobody raises the not so obvious points. Even taking that statement at face value (which you definitely should not) what about the other 10% non-criminals whose privacy was violated without any reasonable cause? Where else are they using the excuse that 90% success rate is acceptable? If 90% is enough to paint everyone with the same brush, when 90% of users are not criminals why aren't the other 10% also treated as innocent too? In reality just about 100% of "critics" saying this are law enforcement agencies or governments who will violate your rights or break the law in a heartbeat if it means getting their way.