I’m not sure I’m understanding you.
Apple designed a system. People guessed at what it did. Their guesses were way off the mark. This poisoned all rational discussion on the topic. If you imagine a system that works differently to Apple’s system, you can complain about that imaginary system all you want, but it won’t be meaningful, it’s just noise.
If they are running safe mandatory scans on your phones for this, you seem shocked and angry that anyone would imply that this would lead to safe mandatory scans on your phones for that and the other, and open the door for unsafe mandatory scans for whatever.
If you can't acknowledge this, it puts you in a position where you can't be convincing to people who need you to deflect obvious, well-known criticisms before beginning a discussion. It gives you crazy person or salesman vibes. These are arguments that someone with a serious interest in the technology would be aware of already and should be included as a prerequisite to being taken seriously. Doing this shows that you value other people's time and effort.
> you seem shocked and angry that anyone would imply that this would lead to safe mandatory scans on your phones for that and the other
Where have I given you that impression? The thing that annoys me is the sensible discussion being drowned out by ignorance.
> If you can't acknowledge this, it puts you in a position where you can't be convincing to people who need you to deflect obvious, well-known criticisms before beginning a discussion.
I cannot parse this, it’s word salad. People who need me to deflect criticisms? What? I genuinely do not understand what you are trying to say here. Maybe just break the sentences up into smaller ones? It feels like you’re trying to say too many things in too few sentences. What people? Why do they need me to deflect criticisms?
You understand it just fine, you're just trying to pass you fantasy pod immutable safe future as rational while painting the obvious objections based on the real world as meaningless noise.