← Back to context

Comment by JumpCrisscross

9 days ago

> America is not a stable ally, and has a history of spying on friends

America is a shitty ally for many reasons. But spying on allies isn’t one of them. Allies spy on allies to verify they’re still allies. This has been done throughout history and is basic competency in statecraft.

That doesn’t capture the full truth. Since Snowden, we have hard evidence the NSA has been snooping on foreign governments and citizens alike with the purpose of harvesting data and gathering intelligence, not just to verify their loyalty.

No nation should trust the USA, especially not with their state secrets, if they can help it. Not that other countries are inherently more trustworthy, but the US is a known bad actor.

  • > Since Snowden, we have hard evidence the NSA has been snooping on foreign governments and citizens alike

    We also know this is also true for Russia, China and India. Being spied on is part of the cost of relying on external security guarantees.

    > Not that other countries are inherently more trustworthy, but the US is a known bad actor

    All regional and global powers are known bad actors. That said, Seoul is already in bed with Washington. Sending encrypted back-ups to an American company probably doesn't increase its threat cross section materially.

    • > All regional and global powers are known bad actors.

      That they are. Americans tend to view themselves as "the good guys" however, which is a wrong observation and thus needs pointing out in particular.

      > That said, Seoul is already in bed with Washington. Sending encrypted back-ups to an American company probably doesn't increase its threat cross section materially.

      If they have any secrets they attempt to keep even from Washington, they are contained in these backups. If that is the case, storing them (even encrypted) with an American company absolutely compromises security, even if there is no known threat vector at this time. The moment you give up control of your data, it will forever be subject to new threats discovered afterward. And that may just be something like observing the data volume after an event occurs that might give something away.

  • There is no such thing as good or trustworthy actors when it comes to state affairs. Each and every one attempt to spy on the others. Perhaps US have more resources to do so than some others.

    You really have no evidence to back up your assertion, because you’d have to be an insider.

    • > There is no such thing as good or trustworthy actors when it comes to state affairs. Each and every one attempt to spy on the others. Perhaps US have more resources to do so than some others.

      Perhaps is doing a lot of work here. They do, and they are. That is what the Snowden leaks proved.

      > You really have no evidence to back up your assertion, because you’d have to be an insider.

      I don't, because the possibility alone warrants the additional caution.

Didn't mean to imply one followed from the other. Rather that both combined creates a risk.