Apple has declared in interviews that the slope shall not be slipped, but you're indicating that they chose this specifically because they can slip that slope.

How did you determine that their intentions contradict their words? Please share the framework for your belief, so that we're able to understand how you arrived at that belief and to evaluate your evidence with an open mind.

(Or, if your claim is unsupported conjecture, please don't misrepresent your opinions and beliefs as facts here at HN.)

Words in interviews mean little to me. If it's impossible to hold a cooperation accountable when the verbal promise is broken, that promise, not word-by-word but in its spirit, is void from the beginning.

This is just my biased view but there _could_ be countless ways to slip the slope without violating the current framing. For example:

Q: What happens when other governments ask Apple to use this for other purposes.

A: We will inform them that we did not build the thing they’re thinking of.[1]

Note that the question could be interpreted as "use this exact implementation" (rather than use the algorithm in general), and the answer does not rule out the possibility of "but we can build the thing for them then" (rather than "we don't have it and we will never have it"). The reader is free to interprete the conversation as they see it.

[1] https://daringfireball.net/2021/08/apple_child_safety_initia... citing [2]

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/technology/apple-iphones-...

“IMHO” means “in my humble opinion”

I'm glad to see that there now, thanks!