honestly it amazes me that people still call such interpretations paranoid in a world where information about the rampancy of such programs is readily available, including for this specific application
Edit: it's not paranoia if there's demonstrable history of such things. It's making a reasonable assumption from available facts.
further, all the arguments against this interpretation assume that those introducing security vulnerabilities for surveillance purposes abide by some kind of logic - which by the very nature of such activities they demonstrate that they do not. They (3 letter agencies) want every possible vector of information gathering regardless of the privacy, security, and legal issues that arise.
honestly it amazes me that people still call such interpretations paranoid in a world where information about the rampancy of such programs is readily available, including for this specific application
Edit: it's not paranoia if there's demonstrable history of such things. It's making a reasonable assumption from available facts.
further, all the arguments against this interpretation assume that those introducing security vulnerabilities for surveillance purposes abide by some kind of logic - which by the very nature of such activities they demonstrate that they do not. They (3 letter agencies) want every possible vector of information gathering regardless of the privacy, security, and legal issues that arise.