Indeed. I was wondering why this belonged here.

It's almost as if Slashdot has discovered battery chemistry.

The article pushes blatant misinformation. Kerckhoff said that a cryptosystem should be secure even if everything about the system, except the key, is known by the enemy. ("Il faut qu'il n'exige pas le secret, et qu'il puisse sans inconvénient tomber entre les mains de l'ennemi" )
Relying on obscurity for your security is poor engineering, in particular for a mass market system. Taking advantage of obscurity for "one of a kind" systems to gain an additional security advantage is fair game.
There's nothing new here, this has been done for decades and centuries. Problems arise when people think this is the golden ticket to keeping the barbarian hordes outside the castle wall.

Well... taking that a bit further, you are responsible for filtering all content that the Burmese/Myanmar government deems to be in violation of their internal laws.
I don't think you would be willing to implement that amount of filtering.

If the Europeans have an issue with it, it should probably be their responsibility to filter it.

The first company to create artificial diamonds was not General Electric, but the Swedish company ASEA, now ABB. The Diamond Makers