They are not the same, but 0 can be implicitly converted to false.

What do you get if you do: 0 === false

I agree. If anything it should check if there is a nuumber and 0 is clearly a number.

No but then the argument above falls flat, doesn’t it?

You are obviously not interested in listening to a word I’m saying. Goodbye.

Alternatively, we need to stop saying E2EE is safe at all, for any type of data, because or the arbitrary usage.

You probably didn’t understand me. I’m saying that a company can just arbitrarily decide (like you did) that the server is the “end” recipient (which I disagree with). That can be done for chat messages too.

You send the message “E2EE” to the server, to be stored there (like a file, unencrypted), so that the recipient(s) can - sometime in the future - fetch the message, which would be encrypted again, only during transport. This fully fits your definition for the cloud storage example.

By changing the recipient “end”, we can arbitrarily decode the message then.

I would argue that the cloud provider is not the recipient of files uploaded there. In the same way a chat message meant for someone else is not meant for the server to read, even if it happens to be stored there.

Uhh yes, sorry. I had it the other way around. Perhaps a native american then raped/had child with a caucasian, who kept the child?

The third paragraph contradicts your other point. You define E2EE in two wildly different ways.

The chat messages are most likely stored on an intermediary server, which would qualify for the same loophole you pointed out in the cloud storage example.

No, the other ancestors are all native American. Obviously the child stayed in the native to community.

There may be several reasons for this. If I had to guess, they found a critical flaw and had to shut it down for security reasons.