I kind of agree with you, but on the other hand, they are storing everything you give them using strong cryptography. If you fundamentally don't trust cryptography then none of those passwords you are worried about are worth protecting in the first place. So I'm not sure it's logically consistent to say that such a service should / should never exist on that basis.
Where I do think it resonates is fundamentally it's just a bad idea to centralize things like this. It may be a necessary to construct a commercial business around this, but centralising massive amounts of trust across unrelated entities into ANY party is just a fundamental compromise that shouldn't have to be made. We would all be better off with genuine decentralised infrastructure to make all this work.
What does irritate me is that all these companies are full of "zero trust" marketing spiel but their products always actually end up coming back to placing 100% trust in them in the end.
It's not the cryptography that I don't trust. It's the e2e implementation. I mean we wouldn't be having this conversation if it was just about the cryptography. Also, subscription fees are a turn off.
Where I do think it resonates is fundamentally it's just a bad idea to centralize things like this. It may be a necessary to construct a commercial business around this, but centralising massive amounts of trust across unrelated entities into ANY party is just a fundamental compromise that shouldn't have to be made. We would all be better off with genuine decentralised infrastructure to make all this work.
What does irritate me is that all these companies are full of "zero trust" marketing spiel but their products always actually end up coming back to placing 100% trust in them in the end.