|
|
|
|
|
|
by euyyn
3549 days ago
|
|
|
Sorry, the policies the parent commenter was talking about were about employees' (lack of) access to user data. Being ordered by a judge to do something obviously supersedes any policy, but that's the case for any person and business. |
|
|
Which we have to take their word on and hope that never changes in the future, even though Google might not be the party with the authority to make that decision. Even when they are, business plans change and a pile of potentially profitable user data is a very powerful temptation towards moral hazard. Only a fool would claim that this wasn't a risk.
> that's the case for any person and business.
Only if you deliberately ignore the entire point that the data shouldn't be stored at all by 3rd parties. A business that sold a real product (instead of a service masquerading as a product) would run locally and no data would be put at risk.
If a judge orders me personally to reveal something, they probably need a warrant and there is a process by which I can challenge that order. If, however, that data is stored on Google's servers then I don't have standing to challenge any interaction between Google and the government.