They appreciate technical correctness and they do not exaggerate. Most 'security researchers' are not technically correct and they exaggerate a lot (seeking fame and all).
Dismissing their claims is not being selective, it's just the right thing to do.
I'm not sure there are any regulations around opting to do that in the US. Do you have a phlebotomist friend? If so, they might do it for you, but it can be risky and they might not want to take the risk, get sued, etc.
It is an interesting question. Are there companies that draw and discard?
Edit: This also helps others who are in accidents, car wrecks, have Cancer, etc. Yes, we pass on the PFAS to others, but the immediate need for blood is more urgent than the potential long term impacts of PFAS.
Some spiders seem to think, recognize people and take immediate evasive action. Contrast that with a beetle, or ant. They just keep walking along like I'm not even there.
I turned the kitchen light on once and saw a spider in the middle of the floor. It ran straight under the fridge. It would peek out occasionally to see if I was still there.
Obviously no one knows every detail all the way down the stack. It's not possible, but having some level of understanding of how a system operates is useful especially if you ever have to fix it yourself or explain why/how it is broken.
c't published articles about a few programs that I wrote (many years ago). They always sent me copies of the magazine with a CD when they did that. The CD had all the free/open source programs that were discussed in the magazine. Very good publisher.
I wonder, why not use an LSM like Tomoyo, App Armor or SELinux to not allow the AI to read the secrets file? That way you could be certain that it could not be tricked into doing so.
My main concern is transparency. How do we know that the ruling/governing class is not abusing these monitoring systems and exempting themselves from monitoring?
If we are all subject to the same monitoring and there are no exceptions, that would be fair. However, if some people are exempt from monitoring because of their connections, relations, etc. then that would be unfair.
And if some people are allowed to harass and stalk others based on some attribute (race, religion, nationality, etc.) because they are in a monitoring position (while others are not) then that would be unfair as well.
It's really about personal privacy. Your computer is likely to be stolen and sold. If you don't want others reading your email, viewing your pictures, seeing your tax returns, etc. then you should encrypt the drive.
That conclusion is similar to the concept of 'unconditional security' especially WRT one-time pads. The key must be at least as long as the message itself.
Other forms of encryption are based on assumptions and conditions being true (e.g. factoring is a hard problem, etc.) that may or may not be true. We don't know.
Dismissing their claims is not being selective, it's just the right thing to do.