[numbsafari]

Which is ironic coming from a company known to be sharing information directly with the NSA.

Name one security technology that is 100% foolproof. They don't exist. So the point isn't to rely on one thing, but to rely on many things that, used in concert, increase the risk, complexity and cost associated with subverting the entire system--not its individual components.

[philwelch]

I don't think I've seen anyone parry an appeal to authority with an ad hominem lately. Good one.

[Karunamon]

In this case it's valid.

In the same way that you'd afford extra scrutiny to a government agent making claims about what encryption methods to use, you should afford the same scrutiny to companies making security claims who are documented collaborators with the TLAs.

An ad hominem isn't always a fallacy, especially when the credibility of the speaker is legitimately in question. Saying they're automatically wrong would be fallacious (not to mention silly), but questioning credibility based on actual, documented behavior is not.

[numbsafari]

Umm... I think the point was to subvert the appeal to authority by pointing out that Google has been compromised.

The main argument is in the second paragraph.

Anyhow, thanks for noticing :)

[victorf]

Citing the Google Chrome Security team regarding security is the exact opposite of the appeal to authority fallacy. It's an appropriate expert for the context.

[sbuk]

No. It's appeal to authority.

[hahainternet]

It is an appeal to authority, but a non fallacious one. As the authority being quoted has the relevant position.