I expected the appeal to authority to be followed up with some counterpoint but no...
No one needs to question the law portions of this to question the underlying premise.
Saying things like "this is bad because Cellebrite is currently being used on rioters" right after you claim what Signal may or may not have done will have no effect on evidence is a flimsy argument you don't need a law degree to oppose.
Ditto for implying Cellebrite should somehow be seen in a positive light because by... enabling and normalizing the invasion of privacy it... somehow preserves privacy?
As if politicians aren't more likely to wave the successes of Cellebrite as exactly why backdoors should be required than the opposite? And even worse, wave the failures that naturally occur as reasons for backdoors?
No one needs to question the law portions of this to question the underlying premise.
Saying things like "this is bad because Cellebrite is currently being used on rioters" right after you claim what Signal may or may not have done will have no effect on evidence is a flimsy argument you don't need a law degree to oppose.
Ditto for implying Cellebrite should somehow be seen in a positive light because by... enabling and normalizing the invasion of privacy it... somehow preserves privacy?
As if politicians aren't more likely to wave the successes of Cellebrite as exactly why backdoors should be required than the opposite? And even worse, wave the failures that naturally occur as reasons for backdoors?