I think the burden is on you to show how all of these things are demonstrated. You're the one making a claim here.

If someone disagrees, it is reasonable to expect them to explain why instead of merely dismissing it.

Also, I think my generalised statements - and generalised statements have value and meaning - are quite self-evident and already well understood concepts among HN readers.

However, here they are explained one minor level further:

- Software can be patched. Hardware can only be thrown out.

- Open-source can be far more easily audited. Closed-source software has to be reverse-engineered by the user at best.

- Full control of encryption means the user has the ability and responsibility to control all aspects of access to the keys.

I now invite you or others to explain your disagreement.

> the user has the ability and responsibility to control all aspects of access to the keys.

It should be obvious to you that this is crazy talk.

Software can be patched by hackers too, which is why you need hardware solutions for security in some cases.

How will your software solution guarantee that the code running is what you think it is?