A more realstic rationale for the analysis of HR and governments' interests
In "Tactics Guides 02 - Communication 03 Use messaging apps more securely Arabic Translate" under "[Assess your needs to decide what tool works best for you](https://gitlab.com/securityinabox/securityinabox.gitlab.io/-/tree/545f30cde72f9802eda872778e0896a306d9d420/src/communication/secure-chat#assess-your-needs-to-decide-what-tool-works-best-for-you)" the last point under #7 reads: > Where is it based? – Are the provider's headquarters and servers in a place that would comply with a request by authorities from your country? And is that government enforcing human rights and consumer protection? It is important to know whether the provider will respect your privacy and rights, and whether it will be forced to collaborate with your country's authorities, especially if you are using the app to secure communications on activities that your government severely cracks down upon. As is the case now in the world, the assumption that some governments are inherently more inclined to protect human rights is no longer realistic. And while some societies do have more versatilities in terms of resisting authoritarianism, government have, do and will cooperate at suppressing activists when their interests meet. A better analysis would take into considerations the interest a given government has concerning the field and causes the human rights defender (the assumed audience of SiaB) is working on and the relationship between that country and the country in which the HR defender works and resides.
issue