This isn't the same. Context is important. Unless they maliciously attempted to pinpoint the exact point in time where they used the software 20 years ago during the interview, then I'd say that's just people being bad at remembering exact circumstances. If you asked me if I used X piece of software during my doctorate and say yes, I can't honestly remember if it was during the 1st or the 4th year ...

Classic troll comeback.

Saying "Google doesn't actually want your data" is disingenuous and laughable. It's like saying to the prisoner in Guantanamo Bay, "I don't wont to torture you, I really don't. If only I could get that vital info for free without having to resort to such despicable behaviour ... but, oh well."

Or Slashvertisements, as the locals here call them.

(n/t)

I'm not implying that DNA is not reliable. Quite the contrary. The more reliable and familiar a method, the more likely it is to be misused.
I appreciate what you're saying that the Prosecutor's fallacy, planting, tampering, bad handling etc, are issues of themselves, but that's just splitting hairs (pun not intended). False DNA evidence suffering from these issues is still more likely to be relied on than, say, witness testimony, because it's considered more reliable.
Therefore in the context of the original comment I was replying to, the point I was making was that the reliability of a method is an entirely different issue to how that method can end up being used or inappropriately relied upon by humans.

And yet, this is the exact definition of the Prosecutor's Fallacy

Facts? Science? Yeah good luck with that.

You are absolutely right, but I think you are underestimating the extent to which its "recommended" use will be honoured, versus the extent to which it will be relied on as first-order evidence, and in full ignorance of the prosecutor's fallacy.

We have seen this happen before with DNA (have a look at the Innocence Project). It is not unreasonable to make the limitations of such a system widely known, given the potential for its use as an almighty tool from people who in fact, quite reasonable, have no idea of the internal workings of the algorithm and thus its limitations.

"Ah ... I used to be a spreadsheet app, just like you! But then I took an arrow to the knee!"

How would backing up accusations with links to examples be of any help if the examples come from false flag operations?

I could literally go and post a false flag example and point you to it.

I'm secretly hoping this will drive Huawei to bank on GNU-Linux and opensource as a strategy to alleviate fears of espionage (what better defence than open source), and create a kickass operating system giving Google and Apple a real run for their money. A man can dream, right?

Ubuntu != Linux. I've been happy on linux mint for the last, I don't know, decades? I shudder when I have to use ubuntu. More so than windows, mind you. Worse part is, I don't even know why. There is no single big reason for it, it's all the papercuts that do it for me. Incidentally, my fiancée requested to switch to linux mint from windows too after seeing me use it, and she's totally happy with it and not going back either. So, yeah, Linux desktop is doing just fine. I feel Mark Shuttleworth sounds more bitter than enlightened here if you ask me.

aaand, this is called victimization and is very much illegal.

(which CommentNow has superceded since plugin messed up its plugin system, but, yes, not a new idea at all)