2017.06.15 00:36:22 (875119751156183043) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Steve Weis (@sweis)" (875106591560810496):
Many of the responses to @durov _have_ been claims of immunity, usually based on ludicrous exaggerations of the number of bribes required.
2017.06.13 22:47:08 (874729875906732032) from "Dan (@dyoder)" = "@danyoder@mastodon.social (@dyoder)", replying to "Tony "Abolish ICE" Arcieri 🦀🌹 (@bascule)" (874729234530316288):
Ah, so DJB's Tweet was sort of moving the goalposts. Or are these two separate conversations? https://twitter.com/hashbreaker/status/874208379371220992
2017.06.13 23:30:03 (874740674779791360) from "Tony "Abolish ICE" Arcieri 🦀🌹 (@bascule)", replying to "Dan (@dyoder)" = "@danyoder@mastodon.social (@dyoder)" (874729875906732032):
More like Durov is incoherent and spouting nonsense. DJB inexplicably tried to argue one of his points (he talked about NSA too)
2017.06.14 23:32:09 (875103589601071105) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Tony "Abolish ICE" Arcieri 🦀🌹 (@bascule)" (874740674779791360):
"Security is guaranteed and is immune to govt money" is ludicrous overconfidence; not the right response to "govt money implies insecure".
2017.06.14 23:44:04 (875106591560810496) from "Steve Weis (@sweis)":
Nobody is talking immunity, just plausibility. Is Signal being backdoored more plausible than NaCL?