[wyldberry]

From an American perspective, i don't trust the government with the implementation details, nor do I trust our political climate, misaligned incentives, and general disinterest in good governance to implement something so sensitive.

If I lived in say, Sweden, I feel much more comfortable trusting their government to implement. In America, I feel I must always vote in a way that prevents giving any power to the government that I wouldn't want my political opponents to have over me.

[soco]

In said US of America, when the government wants to know something about you, they will get everything they want from the companies - it's even written clearly in the US laws. So I'm not sure why (or where) you draw that line...

[sterlind]

1. if they have to subpoena each site each time they need user data, it reduces mass surveillance risk. I'm okay with cops getting a warrant to access someone's gmail. I'm not okay requiring everyone to use email.gov.

2. I use a VPN and pseudonyms. they could unmask me if they cared to, but it'd be annoying. it'd be a lot more annoying if they wanted to unmask every VPN user all the time.

[NetMageSCW]

Being available as part of Google Cliud means subpoenaing Google is probably sufficient for most web sites.

[slaw]

the grass is always greener on the other side

[AlecSchueler]

You think people in Nordic countries think they'd be able to trust their government more if they were American?

[slaw]

OP never lived in Europe and is looking through rose-colored glasses.

[AlecSchueler]

Sometimes your grass is just yellow.