I agree. A real FBI agent would have handed her a letter imposing a legal obligation to keep silent about the conversation, and she would be in jail now. In the alternative, it was a social engineering attack, and we're supposed to admire how they didn't fall for it.
More to the point, if it's possible for her company to compromise customers' communications unilaterally, then the service is insecure, regardless of what promises they make or what type of encryption they (claim to) use.
Comments
Yeah it reads like a PR puff piece. I am sure that is what it is. It follows the template described in http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html.
I agree. A real FBI agent would have handed her a letter imposing a legal obligation to keep silent about the conversation, and she would be in jail now. In the alternative, it was a social engineering attack, and we're supposed to admire how they didn't fall for it.
More to the point, if it's possible for her company to compromise customers' communications unilaterally, then the service is insecure, regardless of what promises they make or what type of encryption they (claim to) use.