> I'd appreciate if you were less combative in your discussion. OK. I agree to drop the word, "even". I could have phrased that more generosly. Here's a try: "

> I'd appreciate if you were less combative in your discussion. OK. I agree to drop the word, "even". I could have phrased that more generosly. Here's a try: "Did you consider the rebuttal provided in the article?" I didn't want to be redundant by repeating it. --- Let's look at this with some perspective. There are 3 ways this can pan out: 1. What Apple wants: Everyone buys an iPhone and uses iMessage. In this scenario, the security of literally everyone depends on their trust in one party (Apple), because iMessage cannot be audited. It's also never gonna happen, so there's that. 2. What Beeper wants: 3rd party apps can send and receive messages with iMessage, and all messages are E2E encrypted. In this scenario, trust is only needed when the app at each end is closed-source. Open source apps can be audited, so conversations between them can be known to be secure. Messages between closed and open source apps must rely on the trust of one closed source app. This is worse if one or more 3rd party apps is closed source, because that introduces more parties who demand trust. This is better if all 3rd party apps are open source, because it allows guaranteed secure comms between users of open-source apps. It's a neutral change for iMessage users, because they must trust the same number of parties (just Apple). 3. What we got: iMessage is only encrypted (if Apple is trustworthy) when both users are using iMessage. This is worse, because iMessage users (and everyone who messages with them) are practically guaranteed to send and receive unencrypted messages. We have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.