siler

Yeah, I found this an important aspect of the article. I don't know anything about the culture at NPM, but this feels related to the mismanagement of communication with consumers/the public about the incident itself. i.e., being secretive for no good reason.

With a safe, as with any encrypted document, there are a finite number of keys. I think that invalidates the idea of possession of the password being important, at least from a "purely lawful" point of view.

Read/write access is basically physical access. Anyone with enough resources could accomplish physical access.

It's possible I'm being paranoid, but it seems like most of law is based on series of assumptions. It isn't a purely logical idea, which is why we have so much fun arguing about it. It is fundamentally the hope of writing down logic in a language that doesn't, unambiguously, contain it.

Wouldn't it be interesting if we were able to capture so much information in a photograph that you could examine the pupils of the people that appear in pupils, etc.?