3 ms·
> This is a classically bogus argument [1]. A foreign adversary, constitutionally unbound, is more worrisome than a domestic actor who, while having a more-legi
by kuschku 9y ago
> This is a classically bogus argument [1]. A foreign adversary, constitutionally unbound, is more worrisome than a domestic actor who, while having a more-legitimate threat of violence, also faces realistic odds of retribution.
So, there is no difference between the two actors: I'm German, both are foreign countries that have threatened to nuke Europe. (Well, at least Trump has).
I don't see why I should trust the US more than Russia, both Trump and Putin don't give a fuck about any other country and just want to destroy my life.
- CrystalGamma 9y agoSame with me. I mistrust German intelligence agencies just the same, even though they are supposed to be organs of my government. My stance here is simple: if an institution has something to hide from me (barring personal information) then that institution cannot be working in my interest, so I can't trust them.
- kuschku 9y agoExactly. And data that isn’t stored can’t be abused, so we should focus on data minimalism.
- traviscj 9y agoI'm no fan of "three letter agencies" but it seems the problem isn't you knowing certain information, it is identifying a set of "yous" who can know it without compromising the purpose the organization is pursuing.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> I don't see why I should trust the US more than Russia, both Trump and Putin don't give a fuck Principally because Americans, as a people and a system of government, trust Trump less than Russia "trusts" Putin. The number of actions Trump can take unilaterally pales compared with Putin. That said, he fact that we have a world where offensive nuclear strikes can be legally called by a single person is showing its ridiculousness. In America we have a hope of modifying that chain of command. In Russia, who watches Vladimir Putin?