[echoangle]

Well Wikipedia says this about E2E:

“End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a method of implementing a secure communication system where only communicating users can participate. No one else, including the system provider, telecom providers, Internet providers or malicious actors, can access the cryptographic keys needed to read or send messages.”

So if you send another set of keys to someone else, it’s obviously not E2E.

[ptero]

This is a high level description of intent (by a third party), not a legal promise.

This is not enforceable and promises that are not enforceable are usually seen by BigCos of today as optional. My 2c.

[echoangle]

Well I wasn’t saying I would sue them, I was arguing this:

> It is possible to set up end to end encryption where two different keys unlock your data. Your key, and a government key. I assume google does this.

Which by definition is wrong (unless the government is a party in the communication you want to E2E-Encrypt).

[ptero]

I agree completely that it is wrong in spirit. But wikipedia's text is a definition, not the only existing one. And for practical use even the most obvious definitions have legal caveats.

For example, asking for 10 gallons of soda at a restaurant advertising unlimited refills will not fly, even though virtually everyone will agree on the definition of the term "unlimited". My 2c.

[dwaite]

I believe the point being made here is that some governments legally mandate that they are a party in communication.