Hmm... if you assume that your government can read your messages but still use the service, then you trust your government to not hurt you based on that. So there is trust.
If, however, you don't send messages you would like to send because you don't trust the service, then it is true that you are not trusting the service, but you are not using it (for those sensitive messages) either.
As soon as you actually use something that matters, you have to trust it. Sending sensitive messages over a system that you don't trust while admitting you don't trust it is... weird.
My point is that trust is a nuanced concept. If you think that it's worth using, then you implicitly trust it enough to use it. Saying "I don't trust it at all but I still use it" is absurd IMHO.
Comments
Hmm... if you assume that your government can read your messages but still use the service, then you trust your government to not hurt you based on that. So there is trust.
If, however, you don't send messages you would like to send because you don't trust the service, then it is true that you are not trusting the service, but you are not using it (for those sensitive messages) either.
As soon as you actually use something that matters, you have to trust it. Sending sensitive messages over a system that you don't trust while admitting you don't trust it is... weird.
Is sending everything encrypted trusting, or not trusting, the communication channel.
My point is that trust is a nuanced concept. If you think that it's worth using, then you implicitly trust it enough to use it. Saying "I don't trust it at all but I still use it" is absurd IMHO.