One could say that through the incalculably inept responses of, refusal to acknowledge the threat of the disease by, and outright lying to the public by, the President, his staff and those senators and congress-critters that, in mocking-bird-like fashion, mimic'd the PotUS's line, did in fact commit acts of treason.
Their refusal to acknowledge the severity of the virus was a direct attack on this nation and the government's ability to protect its citizens.
Their decisions to ignore the threat, and failure to act to bring resources to bear on detection, diagnosing, containment of the disease, all while grand-standing to the press have led to incalculable harm to the people of this nation.
The fact that they then went on to profit through knowledge that should have been distributed to the nation as soon as it was known is just the icing on the treason cake that they've baked together.
backdoor = exploitable, period, end of discussion.
There aren't enough eyes, hell, there haven't been enough eyes on the combined numbers of humans ever alive to make "backdoored" encryption safe.
It's statistically impossible to do with software (which includes software tokens, and hardware tokens are just customized hardware running software token code).
At some point in the distant future, when they've stabilized n-factor qubits, they may be able to send physical encryption/decryption keys, one with vendor, one with device/software, one for NSA, one for KGB, one for 5-eyes, etc, drek-cetra, one thousand for hackers round the world for a pittance of the proceeds.
Hmmm, perhaps "phrankencryption" would be a better "term" to use for what the Australian government will call encryption after it's been dismembered, and all the dead pieces are put together with an "Abbie Normal" brain.
I work for a large global corporation that employs thousands of Australians.
They are already looking at what it will take to exit Australia entirely because following Australia's "phakencryption" law will make us liable to global lawsuits and security audit findings that could cost us billions in fines.
ie - Most countries outside of Australia require "real" encryption that cannot be broken by outside entities.
Australia has just made itself the bane of global corporations.
Technology companies, insurance companies, accounting companies, any company that relies on encryption (including encryption at rest / encryption for backups / encryption for databases) will be saying goodbye to Australia.
Global fortune 100s, 250s, 500s, will all be shuttering operations in Australia because they will not be able to use "real" encryption. They'd only be allowed to use "phakencryption" which would violate all kinds of global laws that require real encryption to protect personal information like financial transactions, health information, identification information, etc.
I can't wait for all their government secrets to be exposed because they switched to "phakencryption" for all of their services to use.
Ajit is only concerned with "speech" for the major vendors.
AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, et al, believe that limiting data allowances, restricting certain (competing) traffic while zero-rating their own traffic, asking content creators to double pay for content delivery is what constitutes their "speech".
Try to force them to not limit, to not-restrict, to not-zero-rate, to not double bill content creators is a restriction of their "corporations as people" constitutional right to free-speech.
The corporations are delusional in thinking that, but they figure they have enough money to make their thinking legit through less than moral, less than legal means.
Watching as Ajit parrots these clames, ridiculous as they are, seems to paint a picture of where those corporate dollars are going.
It also makes one wonder where the eyes of the "oversight" teams/committees are if "it" (corruption) is as blatant as it appears to be.
Freedom of Speech - ie - you do not have a right not to be offended. Freedom of Religion - ie - government cannot tell you what your religion is, or how to practice it
Yeah, if a gay person decided not to sell cakes to Christians, I'd be okay with that. It would kill their business pretty damned quick, but that's okay if that's what they want to do with their business.
I'm not a hater, but most, if not all LGBT members and their supporters seem to be, because they hate it when ANYONE doesn't let them do what they want.
I don't hate, but I don't want it paraded around in my face either.
What people do inside their homes is up to them.
If they decide to step into my personal space to parade it, then I have a problem with it.
If I run a business, I damned well can and will decide who I serve and who I don't.
I don't know how many times I've said, others have said it, anyone who claims Google is a Monopoly is 3 brain-cells shy of a 4 pack.
Google does *NOT* control how many people use their search engine. Google does *NOT* control how many people and/or companies use their advertising.
Google does *NOT* control how much revenue they generate through the search engine and web-advertising businesses.
Why do the idiots in the governments keep thinking they control that, when we know they don't?
We, the people (real human-beings, not corporations) control how many times Google's search engine is used, and by that control, we control which web advertising services are used the most.
Everyone across the globe that makes their own personal choice as to which search engine(s) to use makes the decision(s) for the companies that wish to present web advertisements to the people using those search engines and the websites linked from the search results.
If a majority of the population were to use Bing for example, all of those government morons would be carrying torches and pitch-forks towards Microsoft HQ instead of Google.
However, due to the fact that we, the populace, have made our preferences known, and due to the numbers that show those preferences, Google has the highest search engine usage of any search engine globally, and due to that usage, gets the lion's share of revenue for web advertising.
That isn't due to Google scaring or forcing people or companies into using their services, it is due to their proficiency and excellence of service that we make that selection, thereby telling companies where to spend their advertising dollars.
It's that simple.
If the collective "we" don't want Google to be the top search engine or web advertising giant, then the collective "we" have to stop using their services.
Until the collective "we" change our minds, Google gets the benefits of our daily choices.
There is no Google monopoly. Never has been, never will be.