[handedness]

>> Maintaining one's data as private requires that it is protected as a baseline. > So you're conflating privacy with security, as I expected.

That's a totally defective reading of their comment.

> These are separate matters, although I agree that privacy can't exist without security.

He didn't conflate them, he stated something very similar to your formulation above.

> not purely on code correctness

This assumes a lot that isn't the case about platforms you regularly misunderstand.

[fsflover]

So this comment of yours just states that I'm wrong and the parent is right. I see how you advanced the discussion here.

> He didn't conflate them, he stated something very similar to your formulation above.

My formulation is not equivalent to "Librem 5 has no privacy", at all.

[handedness]

Again, you're misreading. He stated that security is a necessary condition for privacy, you assumed that he's conflating the two things (he clearly doesn't), then...essentially agreed with his point. It's just totally defective.

My comment, which you accuse of not advancing the conversation, was that your comment was internally incoherent. Like some (not all) of your comments, it sets discourse back significantly and the discussion would be much better off without such things.

You admit to holding a preconceived notion that he thinks security and privacy are the same things, which might have something to do with why you consistently fail to interpret some of even the simplest comments. You'd already reached your conclusion about him and didn't truly read his comment, but responded to your preconceived notion of it as soon as you saw the slightest opening. You do that a lot. It doesn't advance discussion.

You're in the second half of your first decade doing exactly the same thing here year after year with an absolute litany of people, including multiple elite developers who are doing incredibly difficult and important work, highly qualified people whose opinions you completely disregard repeatedly. Searching this site for your old threads shows a certain imperviousness of thought. You already have your talking points and you're not budging from them.

Which is fine, some people are just like that, and I'll continue to weigh in on high-traffic threads to make sure you don't harm important projects with your usual comments, but engaging directly with you is as tedious as it is pointless and I won't be doing that much.

I'm not sure what your motives are, but either way there's no upside to doing anything beyond making sure casual readers of high-traffic discussions won't see your more defective comments go mostly unchallenged (as many others have already wisely moved on from engaging with you).