No, I recognize that death cultists have an inverse idea of what's useful
If whatever gets everyone killed is useful to you, that doesn't make it useful to me
I think we shouldn't lie to people about how electronics work to help support the deep state that seems to be trying extremely hard to kill the planet
What do you mean? What is the lie? How is knowing when my data is encrypted on my own machine "inverse useful?"
"End to end" doesn't imply your own machine is involved, it implies no other machines have access except the intended ones
"Encryption" is the part that implies your machine is involved, it describes something that has to happen on your machine
So? What is the lie? Where are all the corpses that this "inverse useful" definition is supposed to be creating?
The lie is the implication that no other machines have access except the intended ones
And wtf corpse tracking capability do you think the rogue AI in my phone has bro? That's a stretch
Why are you so interested in a topic that sounds so incredibly exhausting to actually test anything about? Do you have any idea what it would take to check every named "end-to-end" connection to see if some clandestine third party has access to the data? If you wanted to really test the claim?
Why are you bothering with this idea? Are you genuinely interested in putting in that kind of effort? Or do you just not care about the statements you make?
There is no testing to do since the guy is usually talking about software. Software can't do end-to-end encryption, it needs a machine to run on. Test done before it starts.
I care about the statements I make, so I'm not going to lie to people with the suggestion that their normie ass consumer electronics can do end-to-end encryption just by downloading an app.
Yes, and you could test the actual hardware itself if you want to test whether something is intercepting your data on the hardware level. Is that your claim? That spyware is being integrated into all forms of computing hardware?
1. No, you can't test the actual hardware itself, how tf would you do that? And this software is always an app instead of a whole OS so you also can't test the OS very easily
2. End-to-end encryption is probably never verified by testing. You'd vet the design, manufacturing, whole supply chain, you'd ideally have a system in place to keep each individual in the chain of custody accountable for everything involved in assembling and installing hardware, you'd ideally have people with guns who will track down and arrest anyone that tampers with shit - testing doesn't seem like it would do much unless you have an unimaginably well-equipped and well-staffed lab and a lot of time.
3. Spyware is definitely integrated into internet-connected consumer electronics
There are plenty of ways to debug and audit hardware. People have found differences between physical electrical components and their written specifications by using multimeters and by measuring the responses of the physical chip. Chip manufacturers are also constantly checking semiconductor chips for defects. There's no reason why a determined individual couldn't do this themselves. It is also often possible to probe the hardware on the software level. I know of at least one person who found undocumented behavior by measuring CPU response times for different instructions. If you are worried about network communication then there are numerous external devices you can use to measure and test the various network signals that a piece of hardware is sending out.
And yet, despite this, you still claim to know definitively that there is spyware in our devices. I think you aren't careful at all with your statements. I think you know exactly how exhausting it would be for you to actually verify your statements, and that you are way too lazy to check them.
I'm glad you aren't checking your devices for spyware, since that would be a supreme waste of time. But I don't know why you find this topic interesting enough to talk about. Making and engaging with these kinds of hardware claims sounds like a profound mistake, and I don't understand why you do it. Do you just not care?
Modern transistors keep getting smaller.
I think I am careful with my statements, and I don't think I'm mistaken here
And semiconductor manufacturers built devices to check for defects on the transistor level. Obviously you don't think you are mistaken with your statements; that would be lying, and who would ever lie on the internet?
But you certainly aren't willing to put any significant effort into actually checking your statements. Making statements without checking them isn't being careful. I think you just don't care about verifying your statements. Maybe if you did care then you would realize just how exhausting and stupid this topic is. If you want to have a meaningful conversation then you wouldn't bring up your hardware conspiracy beliefs.
It's no wonder Mental Outlaw uses the term "end-to-end" encryption. He probably wants to have conversations that actually lead somewhere. He probably wants to stick to statements we can actually check, like talking about open-source software.
Idk what you're smoking but in reality consumer devices are still full of backdoors at the hardware and software level
Reality is very hard to test. How much do you care about reality? How much energy do you think this topic is worth? Do you actually want to engage or do you just want to say things?
I care about reality a lot since Digit lives in it; I think this topic is worth the energy it takes to keep replying to reiterate the truth; I doubt there's much of a point in this context though because you seem to be refusing to recognize the truth
