Not sure how encrypting backups solves the problem stated. If I hold the encryption keys, that means I still have access to your data.

One of the headaches of system design in this area is how do you deal with backups. Lets say you do regular backups to s3, glacier, tape, stone tablets.

When you tell your customer "we have deleted all your data", are you loading all your backups and scrubbing their data from there as well? Probably not as it would probably be too expensive, and depending on your size, your backups may cease to be backups as users request for data deletion daily.

Ok, then you might say when you restore backups, you reference all the data to a master "deletion" list and before a backup is restored then you reference that deletion list. Still though you are dependent on the company promising to reference the deletion list. When someone "really really" needs data from a week ago and gets a one off backup, it has deleted customer data in it.

Next, my idea was you encrypt all user data with a user specific key, and when the customer requests to delete that, you just delete the key. Perfect. Up until it's time to backup the encryption keys database and you are back at square one. I understand this solution is probably 95% of the way there but if anyone knows any designs which, when implemented, are fairly foolproof and don't require your customers to be "smart" (e.g. have them hold the encryption key).

>spends rather large amounts of money funding various groups that are adverse to US interests and operate well outside Iran’s borders.

1. This describes many countries that we haven't invaded that I'm not sure you are being serious.

2. You will need to be specific. Which US interests? The interests of Californians or of Saudi Aramaco?

3. America is propoganda giant number one, and China has seemed to come up just fine despite America spending hundreds of billions trying to convince the world the communists in China are eating dirt.

I'm not convinced that this is a good use time or money for the American tax payer. I'm fully convinced American hegomonic decline is fully self-inflected and the trillions wasted in Afghanistan did more to hurt American than any backwards goat farmer in the middle east could ever accomplish.

>I'm not an American but my argument would be that a free and stable world is better for the US.

You aren't arguing for a free and stable world. You are arguing for a total hegemonic power for US interests - and thats my point. You are taking the position of "this is what is good for US companies and interests" and working backwards from there.

It's remarkable you use the "were stopping China from doing whatever they want", but you don't stop and think that there are other people who have legitimate concerns in stopping the US from doing what they want. Replace China with the US and Taiwan with Palestine. Aren't we doing to Palestine what you claim we should stop China from doing to Taiwan? At the very least it comes across hypocritical to claim you are in it for a "free and stable world" when that actually means "the US should get to invade whoever it wants".

Furthermore, the same things you say about Iran, you could argue about North Korea. North Korea has killed Americans, they have an entire month dedicated to hating America (it starts next month!) and openly funds corporate espionage attacks that drains billions from Americans. Despite that do you honestly believe, that the world would be safer if we started dropping GBU-43s on North Korean children? Honestly answer me that.

Despite what you can say about North Korean regime - don't you believe a North Korea, with Nukes mind you, is far more preferable than the alternative? Where America is dropping bombs on North Korean every 5 years? Which do you think is actually better?

Why does North Korea - who again, has done all the same, and more, than Iran get a pass from the military industrial complex? Isn't North Korea clearly the bigger threat when it comes to peace as defined by the parameters you laid out? Once you interrogate this line of thinking it makes 0 sense - and anyone who thinks candidly realizes the contradiction: ironically, once our so called "enemies" have nukes, children stop being vaporized by bombs.

>but there's actually nothing separating china

Yeah man, nothing except 2000+ miles of the largest mountain ranges in the fucking world. Are you serious man?