what they do is inform a 3rd party (a big company or foreign spy - actually both) you are about to start sharing secrets and what security measures you will be using and with whom (everything needed to undermine your security almost)

"if you haven't read all the source code: it isn't secure" -Patrick Volkerding, SLACKWARE LINUX

what's your browser's CA, and are you allowed to browse any major web site if you delete it?

try it (actually don't you may need to re-install your OS if you actually try it)

millenials: YOUR PARENTS LIED TO YOU

a hindu has taken over slackware website and binary releases (this was well published news) ... however the slackware website "about" tab makes no mention of this - which is no coincidence

in other words i did NOT just advocate "slackware" as a secure platform - i was only quoting advice

real security enables spies in your country to speak abroad - that's a problem - however offering broken security doesn't necessarily solve it. in the 1980's ALL ENCRYPTION TECHNOLOGY WAS INFACT ILLEGAL, allowing police to bring in any possible spy.

security allows a hostile country to be in your computer, hide their tracks, and make the remote control impossible to know of because the encryption hides the. in the wrong hands (in any millenial's hand?), security backfires, that is for sure.

aimless "key chained" security allows spies into sensitive material by "heisting upper keys" - the public doesn't seem to care but seems to trust it. the military begins to trust it (though it should NOT be trusted - which actually does endanger the country - if the military is honest about what they use in the media)

the problem with GOOGLE, who has deals with china, being a leader in security advice of requiring CA and handshakes and so on ... is obvious. they are full of illegal aliens.

their real goal is to unstabilize usa and hack usa forcing USA to use made in china "andriods" - google is not doing security to promote general well being

that's all not a paradox because it doesn't have a clean solution in hiding

'security' in the sense of preventing hackers and leaks of private data: is simply not an easily reached goal

HOWEVER SECURITY CAN BE USED:

(1) to continually demand computer upgrades by security releases - each which break something new to re-demand another upgrade. been done for decades, forced upgrades

(2) sell the public on a product that doesn't exist (except trivially) per say

(3) give control of leaks to foreign militaries via (foreign chips in your computer)

(4) give foreign countries access to using your country's telephone company system which aids them to try a hostile takeover of your telephone company(s) (READ MY LIPS - YOUR FUCKED, if that happens)

(5) bill you for false products - here's how

your security is meaningless: your SSN, credit card info - all things leaked, despite your having "security" the same people gave you

HOWEVER - TO ACESS SERVICES (TV, PHONE) you need a password due to "security" (these are not leaked - wow what a coincidence). if you wish to build a phone to sell on the market guess what you need: passwords to get through underlying electronics that prevent competition. the phone buyer doesn't have a right to use the phone except as the phone company says**

** you might find this relaxing if MA BELL is the mother - but if Huawei is - then where are you. fucked. locked out of the game. paying to get into things that your tax dollar once founded in research money is likely.

SOME SERVICES actually just block your computer from doing what is easily done on the internet (signal attack, deletion of just bits) - charing you to re-enable the bits that were attacked

Security also protects government, they are writing laws that citizens aren't allowed to know where government workers live, how much they are paid. The obvious result is political families that are "la familia" mobsters. For crime privacy is needed - and government is awarding itself privacy of who they are and what they earn even what actually was ever produced for the money.

how would you like a security sandwich?

well the issue is, as was said above: security is not a paradox - it just was never simple and ...

THAT'S BEEN KNOWN FOR QUITE A WHILE - not advertised by those pushing it, of course