> I think arguing about state actors is the wrong threat model for this discussion My post was just a rebuttal to GP's framing the discussion around vague accu

> I think arguing about state actors is the wrong threat model for this discussion My post was just a rebuttal to GP's framing the discussion around vague accusations towards state actors. > security services captures the meaning quite well It really doesn't. The various secret services (internal, external, military) are reporting to parliament (not the whole of it, just a close circle/committee nevertheless having received trust by being elected), and their heads are nominated by the government. It's of course entirely within your right to criticize their existence or operations, but yielding power to private monopolies based in another country without any public control whatsover and potential ties to foreign secret services (we don't really know) can't possibly solve whatever problem you're on to, and shouldn't be justified on such vague arguments.