The NSA “support of encryption” is indigenous says EFF
beencrypted.com
The NSA “support of encryption” is indigenous says EFF
1–6 of 6 posts
Re: The NSA “support of encryption” is indigenous says EFF
#2I apologize if I'm wrong here, but I believe that the word you were looking for was "disingenuous" rather than "indigenous".
Re: The NSA “support of encryption” is indigenous says EFF
#3I apologize if I'm wrong here, but I believe that the word you were looking for was "disingenuous" rather than "indigenous".
You're correct:
“It sounds disingenuous; it seems that what they mean by strong encryption isn’t near the same as what the rest of us say,” Cohn said.
Re: The NSA “support of encryption” is indigenous says EFF
#4I apologize if I'm wrong here, but I believe that the word you were looking for was "disingenuous" rather than "indigenous".
The rest of the article was so riddled with grammar and spelling errors and basic misuses of language that I gave up on it pretty quickly, so I'd say you're right. Also, one of the panellists used "disingenuous", further suggesting that that is what was meant, but clearly no editors or proofreaders were disturbed in the publication of the article.
Re: The NSA “support of encryption” is indigenous says EFF
#5I apologize if I'm wrong here, but I believe that the word you were looking for was "disingenuous" rather than "indigenous".
Or maybe NSA's HQ in Fort Meade are built on top of the area occupied by an aboriginal tribe which based its culture on strong encryption, and NSA coopted that.
Re: The NSA “support of encryption” is indigenous says EFF
#6I apologize if I'm wrong here, but I believe that the word you were looking for was "disingenuous" rather than "indigenous".
The rest of the article was so riddled with grammar and spelling errors and basic misuses of language that I gave up on it pretty quickly, so I'd say you're right. Also, one of the panellists used "disingenuous", further suggesting that that is what was meant, but clearly no editors or proofreaders were disturbed in the publication of the article.
Yes. It's not just grammar and spelling problems but sentences that are incoherent. There's something fundamentally wrong with this article, it looks like something written by a bot that regenerates other articles in an attempt to plagiarize while hoping to circumvent copyright.
This next article has essentially the same informational content, but with the sentences phrased slightly differently, yet still coherently: https://threatpost.com/eff-nsas-support-of-encryption-dising...