4 ms·
Except for giving the authorities a way in to replace the one they're losing.
by hkt 5y ago
Except for giving the authorities a way in to replace the one they're losing.
- IncRnd 5y agoThat's not what was being argued, but you made an excellent point.
- zepto 5y agoWhat was being argued was exactly this.
- IncRnd 5y agoI know what I was arguing, and it was specifically mentioned, so no it was not what was being argued.
- zepto 5y ago> Scanning people's on-phone photos clearly has nothing to do with being a precursor to e2e encryption This is what you were arguing. It is false.
- IncRnd 5y agoFollowed by this, "The photos get transferred either way, so one has nothing to do with the other." It was clearly a technical statement not a privacy statement, so only superficial reading might lead one to believe it meant something that it did not. That is why I replied that the person who replied to my comment, where I said I had argued something different, but that what he wrote was an excellent point. So, what on earth are you so invested in that you feel the need to argue minutiae that don't apply?
- zepto 5y ago> "The photos get transferred either way, so one has nothing to do with the other." That doesn’t change anything. It may be a pre-requisite from the perspective of their business. You replied to me and I didn’t constrain my point to just technicalities. > So, what on earth are you so invested in that you feel the need to argue minutiae that don't apply? It does apply. I’m simply pointing out that what you said is not correct.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]