You obviously didn’t watch the video, the point made is not that there is information being handed over (every company has to comply with legal orders), but that Singal handed over nothing except 2 timestamps shared as integers.
Congrats if you can stand more than a minute of this 4chan-esque garbage but I’m not gonna sit through 10 minutes of it while they stretch out getting to the actual point. If you want to bring forth an argument, don’t start with “watch this random ass YouTube video” where I have to sit through some garbage and have to then fact check every potential point made.
I get not watching the video, I didn’t, but why reply then? It’s obvious you would be off the mark. Also, sometimes the description is enough to get what a video is about, here it was.
I only opened the embedded player, I didn’t even bother wasting an actual click on that video. And why reply? Because they’ve made a stupid point about not having watched the video. That’s why. If he wanted to make a point he could’ve cited an article with the relevant tidbits instead.
You are correct though, I did indeed not watch it. Hence I misunderstood the comment I was answering to as being negative towards Signal. Thanks for the added context.
Tell me though, which company will not hand over what data they have when asked by their country’s judiciary?
The question here is how much data they keep. Strict legal minimum or more.
You obviously didn’t watch the video, the point made is not that there is information being handed over (every company has to comply with legal orders), but that Singal handed over nothing except 2 timestamps shared as integers.
Congrats if you can stand more than a minute of this 4chan-esque garbage but I’m not gonna sit through 10 minutes of it while they stretch out getting to the actual point. If you want to bring forth an argument, don’t start with “watch this random ass YouTube video” where I have to sit through some garbage and have to then fact check every potential point made.
Here’s what the video is based on: https://signal.org/bigbrother/cd-california-grand-jury/
I get not watching the video, I didn’t, but why reply then? It’s obvious you would be off the mark. Also, sometimes the description is enough to get what a video is about, here it was.
I only opened the embedded player, I didn’t even bother wasting an actual click on that video. And why reply? Because they’ve made a stupid point about not having watched the video. That’s why. If he wanted to make a point he could’ve cited an article with the relevant tidbits instead.
They weren’t talking about your reply.
Then they should reply to whoever they meant to reply to.
They were very obviously speaking about the sequence of comments in the above thread and not about you specifically.
That makes even less sense since the previous guy did speak generally and not just about Signal.
You are correct though, I did indeed not watch it. Hence I misunderstood the comment I was answering to as being negative towards Signal. Thanks for the added context.