They're a government that the US recognizes, and that's widely recognized by other governments that the US recognizes. That makes them legitimate. Terrorists by definition do not include legitimate governments. Anyone that doesn't agree is a "terrorist sympathizer".
I don't necessarily agree, but that's just how it is.
And some of us are mad at Google and Apple for selling such insecure-by-design junk. By that I mean that apps are trusted more than (and can't fully be controlled by) device owners.
I don’t think the trust policy has much to do with this. At the end of the day, an app exploit is an app exploit, and if an app can make calls, an app exploit will be able to make calls too. As long as the exploit is not allowed to burrow in the OS proper, it likely wouldn’t be any different on Linux or a BlackPhone.
I guess. But as I understand it, it's much harder to lock down apps on phones than on Linux. Users can't directly control networking, for example. And have zero insight or control over the cell modem. Even doing a real firewalled VPN on smartphones is virtually impossible. And I don't believe that one can do VirtualBox or KVM or whatever virtual hosting on them.
> This is a private company with international investors.
Knowing nothing about the company in question, I'm still certain that most of its founders, investors and employees come from 8200. So, government doesn't need to be formally involved in any way, it's just the same social circles, everybody just knows everyone.
What do you even mean by "international terrorists"? Is it what your government calls "international terrorists"? If so, then by definition they differ from, say, Al-Qaeda by the fact, that they are considered an ally by the USA (well, that, and that they have more resources).
Otherwise, it is your choice, whether you need a distinction like that. I don't see how it might be useful.
