Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Eh, that doesn’t answer the question, though.

"We never were forced to build an additional backdoor" could just as well mean "because we already had one"

EDIT: 10min after posting already at -2? Seriously? Please post a comment why you disagree instead of just downvoting.




I didn't downvote you either. But I'm guessing that the issue is the kind of "have you stopped beating your wife" twist you're giving to what the Google spokesman said. It seems like you're looking for a way to twist what he said to fit your paranoia, rather than giving an honest reading to his words.

That said, your reading is within the possible meanings of his words... but I still think you're trying to read too much into them.


Is he? Company spokespeople tend to be extremely well-trained to say certain things just the right way.

Note that the spokesperson in question could have started that sentence with, "We don't have any backdoors in our products and..."

But they didn't.


Considering that PR people are trained to say things in the most preferable way for the company, and considering what happened in the Apple case and in the previous years with PRISM, it’s not paranoia to assume that Google has a backdoor one way or another. It’s probably even expected in the age of NSL letters and secret courts.

Overspecific dementi "We never had to add a backdoor" are usually a very good sign of a company under a gag order that still wants to notify the public.


I didn't vote, and I don't disagree with you per se, but I also don't really know what you're saying. In the context of the quote, there was no question indicated, so it's very hard to tell what question wasn't answered.


The question of "does Google have a backdoor" - which is what was implied here.


I think you can only infer that question if you didn't read the article.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: