> That is not true. The "lie" is that if you allow a back channel into secure communications then you cannot be sure who will use it. You have gone from trusting the other party (whom you probably know) to trusting them and a third party, who's identity is a bit of a mystery.
No one is asking that! The communication channel is untampered. The app is where the backdoor is, before the communication channel.
> Somebody else has pointed out this is nonsense. It makes no difference. Whilst it is a fact, it is also a lie. Well done
Bullshit! You damn well know it does! A network adversary and an ondevice adversary are completely different. If you don't know that, you are clueless or a liar. There is security in transit and security on device. The backdoor applies to on device security before any transport crypto is applied. This is the same as your keyboard app being backdoored or a rat infecting your phone.
> That too is a lie. Signal offers secure communications. If it scans messages and sends hem to third parties that is not "Signal", that is something else
You know, just because you say words, that doesn't mean they mean things. How can that possibly in a logical universe be a lie when I said "can"? Are you claiming Signal by law would be forced to change its name or disband if it started scanning messages before encryption? Would there be a tear in timespace if that happened? Please do explained why I was called a liar for pointing out that possibility.
> Extraordinarily naive about the habits, morals, and actions of the English state. That is so untrue it transcends "lie".
Wth does that even mean. Are you saying corporations in the UK do not have to folloe the law or can pick and choose what laws to follow?
I think yours and others problem is you don't get the absurdity of companies acting as if they were individual participants in political discourse. They are not. They have no right. Companies don't vote, they have privileges and reaponsibilities and never rights of any kind.
> There are statutes, that can be changed at any time if the Lords agree, and over time if they do not
I hope that applies to companies too?
> Constant surveillance of all people at all times. A camera in every bathroom, In general every bedroom. My point is a line must be drawn somewhere.
At no point did I disagree with that. I have refused to visit the UK multiple times because of the nightmarish CCTV surveillance there. I do not agree with what they are doing but I disagree that civil disobedience can be invoked every time a law you disagree is passed, especially when tech people like you are lying about what is and isn't possible instead of boycotting the UK market or finding alternate solutions to CSAM abuse and other tech abuses and also when the government's actions will materially and provably reduce actual harm but mass surveillance has no actual proven and physical harm to anyone. I am all ears for solutions and I do not support mass surveillance but don't pretend your human right was violated when you don't even need to use smartphones (or rather smartphone and tech dependency itself is the violation of rights).