2018.04.13 21:55:56 (984882899169284096) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (984299450360324101):
So you think that crossing out the word "absolute" would change the meaning of the claim that QKD exchanges "a cryptographic key between two remote parties with absolute security, guaranteed by the fundamental laws of physics", so it would no longer be clearly false advertising?
2018.04.08 08:53:48 (982874132273606656) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (981224310831505408):
Let me see if I understand. A reader in your world, facing a statement that clearly says X, goes reading through the entire paper that contains the statement to figure out whether there are admissions that X isn't actually true, and then reinterprets the statement accordingly?
2018.04.09 14:12:55 (983316827332841473) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)":
I do not agree on “clearly says X”. I used the broader context to assert the meaning. I can’t think of anyone reading the CSS code-paper without knowledge of standard QKD threat model. In your world, if your first interpretation of X is contradicted by the text, you don’t care ?
2018.04.12 05:55:20 (984278771799912448) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (983316827332841473):
Consider the statement that QKD exchanges "a cryptographic key between two remote parties with absolute security, guaranteed by the fundamental laws of physics". This statement communicates false information to the reader. Are you claiming that this depends on "broader context"?
2018.04.12 07:17:31 (984299450360324101) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)":
As said previously, I consider this statement false, because of the claim of absolute security. The context makes things worse: this document is a marketing doc, aimed at people not knowing QKD, hence not knowing the usual security models.