Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're drawing a false dichotomy when you talk about technology and policy as separate issues. If you are unable to overhear my encrypted messages, were you stopped by the technology of the Salsa20 algorithm or my policy of not giving you the keys? Or were you stopped by the government's policy of not compelling their production for you? Maybe you were stopped by your own policy of not beating people with rubber hose…
I don't think any of this has anything to do with the comment I wrote. You have a strong policy opinion. That's fine. I didn't criticize it.
> It won't make phones less secure in any technological sense... The kind of insecurity people are talking about is a policy concern;
(My comment alleges there is no such thing as a "technological sense" as distinct from a "policy concern".)
> It annoys me a lot when people in technology deploy special- pleading logic like this.
(My comment alleges that the logic isn't special-pleading.)
I didn't intend to be read as confrontationally as perhaps I sounded. You have a minority position in this kind of environment; I take minority positions sometimes, I understand it is not always pleasant to prosecute them. If you don't want to prosecute them, I won't make you. I'm just explaining that I really did offer a good-faith rebuttal of what I understood to be your position. There may be something wrong with it, but I don't think it's off-topic.