Oh indeed, if we just redefine words in the fine print then we can commit fraud with impunity.
Please enlighten me how that blurb supports the common reading of the claim: Your data, … secure. Note that and is a additive conjunction, so the components can be safely examined separately.
A regular person would assume that means your data is secure against tampering and disclosure. If you then say: “lol, jk we do not do anything related to securing your data” in the fine print then in a reasonable society you should be required to remove that more prominent false large print.
You can always go back and reword your large print to be more accurate without making deceptive claims to your benefit. Weird how the deception is always beneficial.
Security is an umbrella term. You can't just assume that secure things are private--you have to make the determination in context with whatever kind of thing it is.
The primary goals of a system like radicle are:
- spread the word
- don't let anybody alter it
If you ask if it's secure, you should assume you'll get an answer related to those purposes.
If you got a sunburn while standing in line for a water slide, you wouldn't say that the slide is unsafe, even though being burned is a hell of a departure from "safety". You'd have to be a little more specific.