The problem with his first argument is that it is a logical fallacy (affirming a disjunct). Just because one does not say A, does not mean that it automatically must be B. He says "most likely", but even this is not certain. I agree, it feels that it must be true. But then again this is an inductive fallacy. Simply because most companies we know that have acted in such a way actually were eavesdropping on its customers, one cannot say with certainty that this is a general rule.
Big fancy words with zero content and a complete lack of arguments.
> He says "most likely", but even this is not certain.
That is the exact meaning of most likely.
> Simply because most companies we know that have acted in such a way actually were eavesdropping on its customers, one cannot say with certainty that this is a general rule.
It would be plain idiotic to not assume the worst until proven otherwise, especially after everything we learned in the past few years.
If Skype could not eavesdrop on calls, they would most certainly say so when ask —because not saying so would make them look bad. It's then a simple matter of probability theory to deduce that their silence most probably means it can eavesdrop on calls.
Affirming a disjunct is perfectly legitimate approximation in this case.
