> even if we are competent enough to prevent a leak from ever happening, and even if our users trust us to do what we say, we must be resilient to being strong-armed by a future controlling power (e.g. if someone we don't trust buys us)
They could be strong armed into collecting data and then handing it over.
Why are so many of you so keen for them to be "wrong"? Like what even is the alternative approach here supposed to be? Don't build a product in the first place?
The original premise of the article is we don’t have to be concerned with their intentions. This is false.
> Why are so many of you so keen for them to be "wrong"?
I’d rather they were right. But they are wrong.
> Like what even is the alternative approach here supposed to be? Don't build a product in the first place?
Don’t say you can do things you can’t.
I don’t have to offer a solution to point out they’re not offering one either.
A closed source client is fundamentally incompatible with the claims they want to make.