[ajross]

> have no reason to believe there's not at least some exfiltration

Is it genuinely your opinion that that activity (just look at all the equivocation!) constitutes a risk at the same level as alleged by the linked article?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. HN has a tunnel vision disease on this subject. "Yes yes, DOGE bros stole the SSA database, but let's please talk about how awful Google is." It's clinical at this point.

[GuinansEyebrows]

yes, 641A being the prime example, but i suppose it depends on how wide a net you cast to define "risk". plus: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/03/targeted-advertising-g...

i'm not saying it's not like these big tech firms don't have their hands legally tied by NSA letters, but that's entirely divorced from whether i trust them to steward my data.

[ajross]

And I repeat: you are refusing to engage with the privacy crisis right in front of our eyes and insisting instead we treat with your personal crusade against a threat that is almost entirely theoretical. That's just not rational discourse, it's a vendetta. And you're hardly alone.

[GuinansEyebrows]

i don't understand your combative tone. i'm not for DOGE twerps stealing PII.