>It means trusting that they won't leak that data intentionally, for political or personal gain, or by incompetence, under attack by hackers all over the world.
This! No communication is as secure as it could be if gives access to someone that is not an intended recipient.
It's not a matter of trust, it is a matter of design and common sense. I trust plenty of people, but I don't email them the passwords to all my accounts. Doing so would be an unnecessary risk with zero benefit even if they are 100% trustworthy (possible) and even if they are never compromised (extremely unlikely) because other people's systems are beyond my knowledge and my control. How can someone analyze risk under such circumstances?
* Do you think a secretive intelligence agency is going to announce that they were compromised?
* Even if they do, how much data are they going to provide on what exactly was stolen?
This! No communication is as secure as it could be if gives access to someone that is not an intended recipient.
It's not a matter of trust, it is a matter of design and common sense. I trust plenty of people, but I don't email them the passwords to all my accounts. Doing so would be an unnecessary risk with zero benefit even if they are 100% trustworthy (possible) and even if they are never compromised (extremely unlikely) because other people's systems are beyond my knowledge and my control. How can someone analyze risk under such circumstances?
* Do you think a secretive intelligence agency is going to announce that they were compromised?
* Even if they do, how much data are they going to provide on what exactly was stolen?