I've also seen a Spanish site with this, but as far as I know it has only been accepted by Austrian and German authorities (and challenged recently by some courts).
> The "--force" / legacy option can't tell a difference between "broken solution that will work for you" and "broken solution which won't".
But probably it doesn't have to. "--force" implies that the user wants to go on and manage the consequences of what happens. Typing it requires actively adding that flag, which is a conscious decision on the part of the user. If the user wants to check by themselves if it works or not, that could be their prerogative.
In the Spanish-speaking world you can find the endings -e, -@, and -x. Depending on the area/organization one or other can be used (also, differing ways of pronouncing them; I'm a native and barely have heard any one pronounce the -e versions ever).
This seems to ignore the Snowden revelations. I don't think most of the world trusts US companies qualitatively more than they trust Chinese companies for these kinds of apps.
Also, the discussion was about national security and you are giving different arguments here. How is this related to national security?
Is this really true? You do not think China's actions in Hong Kong has put more doubts into China's policy on human rights compared to United States?
If you tell me you believe they are equal, I'll take your word for it. While the United States has plenty of flaws, I think they are still far more trusted when it comes to human rights.
I'd think that it's cheaper not because it's risky (specially since Amazon says it inspects the item), but because it's second hand. Trying to pass the risk to the user is probably not what most people would expect.
I've also seen a Spanish site with this, but as far as I know it has only been accepted by Austrian and German authorities (and challenged recently by some courts).