@marathon @freemo "Likely" is a word we use when there is *risk* involved. Of course you don't know what happens inside that company (trade secrets are not public). It's completely foolish to assume a tech giant has your interests in mind, particularly when they've proven to be untrustworthy (they were caught doxxing a child porn whistleblower to the perp). And you think ppl should trust them?
🇳🇱
The fact that they transferred information of people reporting sites is very damning, I agree with you on that point (its the one and only big issue I have with them). They did correct the issue, but the fact that it was intentional leaves a lasting stain.
But your argument seems to be "they are a large technology company and they analyze the data they collect"... that is not a "risk" in my eyes no more or less than a small company is likely to misuse your data.
Thats more of an anticapitalism stance than a privacy stance based on that argument.
Though if you stick to the whole "they doxxed people and therefore cant be trusted as a company", that I would be willing to get behind.
@freemo @marathon In infosec we have a #PrincipleOfLeastPriviledge rule. That is, you don't extend trust where you don't need to. There is no need to trust a (proven untrustworthy) tech giant with petitioner's personal data.
@koherecoWatchdog I am willing to accept the "proven untrustworthy" part only due to their past doxxing, and like i said is the only reason i am critical of them.
If that event didnt occur then they would be no less trustworthy than any other service out there.
