> A company based in a country that does not have laws enabling agencies to snoop on and prevent the disclosure of said snooping would automatically be more trustworthy than any US-based company.
The ultimate irony is that by using providers in a country that spies and is unwilling to admit, over a country that spies and is willing to admit, is that you're forgoing the "trustworthy" spying country in favor of the "untrustworthy" spying country.
You know the US spies. How much do you really know about the ones that are staying nice and quiet right now?
I didn't realize secrecy equated with trustworthiness.
How about a country which doesn't spend trillions on spying and thys probably doesn't have capacities anywhere close to those of the US, secret or not.
The ultimate irony is that by using providers in a country that spies and is unwilling to admit, over a country that spies and is willing to admit, is that you're forgoing the "trustworthy" spying country in favor of the "untrustworthy" spying country.
You know the US spies. How much do you really know about the ones that are staying nice and quiet right now?
I didn't realize secrecy equated with trustworthiness.