I would point out that we trust other people and their work all the time, air line pilots or otherwise, too. It’s an unfortunate necessity of living in a society as social creatures.
You would be correct, but my larger point is the facts (or "science" as some people incorrectly use) end at the people who really know what is going on. For everyone else, it's an article of faith.
Either you believe that what China is saying, that their application doesn't snoop on you, or you believe what other people are saying that "yes it does, get rid of it". In either case, or the multitude of cases in between, 99.997% of the people are talking it on faith, or alternatively, just don't care.
I am a man of science and engineering, law and order, cause and effect. But I understand that rigid worldview ends with the human component, because every human on this planet has motivations that may be counter to the facts and that most people, under pressure, actual or self-imposed, will attempt to rationalize whatever decision they make, and that rationalization will deviate over time.
A police officer will rationalize the that his/her life is in jeopardy every time on the street, and that the backup of their associates is critical, and thus to maintain that absolute trust, certain things/behaviors must be overlooked.
A researcher will rationalize that in the name of the "greater good", more money needs to flow into their program, because they "just know" a little bit more is all that's required, and thus if the proposal package needs to shade a little bit that isn't 100% supportable, that's ok, and by the way, if their compensation package benefits, well, that's a side benefit.
An "honest" politician will say "well, I need to take these dollars, because in the aggregate, I am doing more good than otherwise" or "the compromise isn't perfect, but in big picture, it's an improvement".
In any case, most humans will do what is required to protect and, if possible, enhance, their "good deal", consciously if they're being honest with themselves, but certainly unconsciously if not. Nature will always default to the lowest energy solution, and that echo's throughout not just nature, but everything, and human psychology is no different. It's not just how we're wired, but how the universe is wired.
Unfortunately, people are really, really bad at just coming out and saying they are being, if not evil, at least morally compromised for personal gain (doesn't have to be money, but reputation, moral "high ground", power, clicks, whatever). But a bigger failing is that everyone else believes those people when they say it's not about any of those things, and fails to do any critical thinking on the subject. Sometimes because folks don't want to spend the energy, because they also personally benefit (directly or otherwise), because they don't want to go against the grain of what their friends or political ideology says, because it would require knocking too many penguins off the iceberg, or that the issue is just beyond their scope of concern.
The real truth is that, despite the claims of the new age of moral relativism (or is it relative moralism?), not only are there bad people doing evil things for wicked reasons, but in many cases, they are doing so under the guise of what is right or they play the safety card if it clearly isn't, and plenty of people are ready to buy into it, or at least ignore it.
Maybe that is why those dudes were always grumpy
