I looked it up and still have no clue what Ed Balls day is.
The guy tweeted his name and that's it?
Yep, that's it. He thought he's searching for his name but ended up tweeting it instead.
This is a little more impressive. Firstly, it is the President not a congressman, and second, he tweeted literal gibberish. Ed Ball at least had the decency to embrace his gaff. Trump deletes the tweet and then tries to make it seem like it was on purpose? SAD!
Ed Balls celebrates Ed Balls Day every year (not out of choice - he just caves to peer pressure). He's a true gentleman about the whole situation.
But wait, did Trump try to make it seem like it was on purpose? I thought that was just Spicer being an absolute moron. Of course, I understand that the White House Press Secretary's words should absolutely be taken as the White House's official stance on the matter, and there's
a lot of criticism to be had there, but Trump himself seems to have taken a very different approach:
Encryption isn't one sided. Both sides of the call need to share the same encryption setup. And (probably) every point in between. Though now with data calling that's not really an issue.
The in-between points generally
shouldn't be privy on the encryption setup, except for very specific scenarios. The idea here is that one side encrypts a message, then it passes encrypted through the channel, and gets encrypted at the other end. As long as both ends adhere to good practice, the channel itself does not have to be secure at all.
As long as you don't mind AT&T knowing
that you called me, and it's just the content of the conversation that you want to hide from prying ears, then we can have an encrypted phone conversation anytime with little setup required. Perhaps one of the greatest beauties of modern cryptography is that you and I have access to (most of) the same technology that those guys would be using.