You could have stopped at "means". No need to be condescending or telling me I don't know how stuff works. I know how stuff works.
My point is, and remains, purely non-technical though. And I also know how language works.
If you say "we don't allow X, only Y, because we prioritize security". Then change that to "we do allow X but will perform extra security scrutiny over what we do at Y" then it does not compute. Again: it proves your first statement was a lie (intentional or not). Because a) it was possible to allow for your level of security and you could've allowed both X and Y all along, or b) you are now lowering your security, proving you don't really prioritize security, or c) you are merely frustrating X in a different way now and security was never the reason not to allow X.
I'm convinced it's both a and c. I surely hope not that it's b.
My point is, and remains, purely non-technical though. And I also know how language works.
If you say "we don't allow X, only Y, because we prioritize security". Then change that to "we do allow X but will perform extra security scrutiny over what we do at Y" then it does not compute. Again: it proves your first statement was a lie (intentional or not). Because a) it was possible to allow for your level of security and you could've allowed both X and Y all along, or b) you are now lowering your security, proving you don't really prioritize security, or c) you are merely frustrating X in a different way now and security was never the reason not to allow X.
I'm convinced it's both a and c. I surely hope not that it's b.