> - Worse, following through could put their users in legal (and/or physical) jeopardy This bit is very relevant, and I agree. It’s ethically dubious to put un

> - Worse, following through could put their users in legal (and/or physical) jeopardy This bit is very relevant, and I agree. It’s ethically dubious to put unknowing users at risk in that way, whether from democratic or authoritarian governments. The other points, though, very much assume that the goal is to change the outcomes of American court processes. The focus is almost entirely on what a judge in the US would think, on evidence rules in American courts, etc. Maybe American law and law enforcement isn’t as relevant as an American lawyer thinks it is, and Signal is betting that the PR and politics game is more important. If they did make that bet, which I think is likely, then the article has some valid arguments at the end – this hack(or non-hack) may lead politicians to introduce stronger laws – and _that’s_ where the focus should be. Is this a god move, politically? And, to reiterate from the beginning: Does this put end users in danger? If it does, it’s likely not worth the price even if there was some political victory in the end.