• dafta@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                I’d say that the principal claim is that they can’t see your messages and that they have no incriminating data on you. No judge can order them to hand over your data and incriminate you because they don’t have that data. What exactly is the very little data they have is less important.

                • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Thats re-interpreting what they said to be something defensible; but it isn’t what they said. What they said was specific, and isn’t, afaik, supported by any evidence. Its also the very first thing they said. Their main point. The primary point. Not some other thing they didn’t say, but the very first, and very specific thing they said first.

                  Re-interpreting what people say to support our bias is both de-constructive when real security concerns are on the line, disingenuous, and shows a lack of reading comprehension.