2 ms·
In fact, they are negative because they say that this can't be done without opening up the service to vulnerabilities that could be used by others. > I ett bre
by hav 2y ago
In fact, they are negative because they say that this can't be done without opening up the service to vulnerabilities that could be used by others.
> I ett brev till regeringen skriver Försvarsmakten att lagförslaget inte kommer kunna förverkligas ”utan att införa sårbarheter och bakdörrar som kan komma att nyttjas av tredje part”.
> In a letter to the government, the Swedish Armed Forces writes that the legislative proposal will not be able to be implemented "without introducing vulnerabilities and backdoors that may be utilized by third parties."
- diggan 2y agoThat specific quote is in the original comment of this thread :)
- hav 2y agoYes, but your deduction is incorrect. They're saying the SAF are negative _and_ they recommend their personell to use the service, not that they are negative _because_ they recommend it.
- Thorrez 2y agoI don't see how you can know that "because" is incorrect. This seems like it could be possible to me: (Possibly) SAF is negative because they use Signal, and don't want a law that would introduce vulnerabilities into Signal that could be utilized by third parties.
- squigz 2y agoThis was already commented by the original comment in this thread and is not mutually exclusive to GP's comment. What is your point?