[nobody9999]

>To be fair you have the burden of proof by asserting "computers connected to the internet can not be secured."

How so?

In fact, competent InfoSec folks will tell you that you should assume that "if you connect a device to the Internet, eventually it will be compromised."

That's not to say a device will be compromised, but making such an assumption, given the history of Internet connected devices is an eminently reasonable one.

I've yet to see any formal proof that computers connected to the Internet can be secured.

If you have, please link a reference. I'd love to see it.

[kfrzcode]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But even ordinary claims require ordinary evidence.

The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the defendant. I believe that's the point parent was addressing.

[nobody9999]

>The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the defendant. I believe that's the point parent was addressing.

Absolutely. I was pointing out that in this specific case (whether or not devices connected to the internet can be secured), the converse is also true.