The law was maybe saying that, but that doesn't change what I'm saying. Which boils down to "I disagree with the response we have given, we should have been neg

The law was maybe saying that, but that doesn't change what I'm saying. Which boils down to "I disagree with the response we have given, we should have been negociating rather than just saying no". Should I go ahead with a disclamer that says which open source encryption products used by governments that I'm involved into? Not sure, my point is: we have their attention, why use it to just say no when we could negociate and make outdoors security a feature in addition too online security.