[quadrifoliate]

Honestly, I think the author is expecting too much from companies that are under jurisdiction of the US Government, especially in the situation as of 2026. It is telling that when they say "federal government" in the article, they implicitly mean the US Federal Government and not those of the UK or Trinidad and Tobago.

The author (in my opinion) needs to raise this with their own governments (UK is probably the one where they can get better action) to push for data sovereignty laws so that it's at least UK or Trinidad and Tobago that are the governments involved in investigating their data, via appropriate international warrants.

[wasabi991011]

I don't see how your opinion matches the article.

Expecting a company to hold its own promise (of notifying the user before it happens) sounds like a pretty minimal expectation, hard for me to imagine it being "too much".

Furthermore, how would data sovereignty affect whether Google holds its promise on notifying users?

[quadrifoliate]

My opinion doesn't match the article. I do think the user has a legitimate grievance; I am merely suggesting a different avenue for fixing it.

> Expecting a company to hold its own promise (of notifying the user before it happens) sounds like a pretty minimal expectation, hard for me to imagine it being "too much".

I am saying that this expectation is unrealistic for a British/Trinbagonian citizen, given the political situation in the US right now. For a US citizen having the same issue (Google gave their data to the government without a safeguard), it would be realistic.

> Furthermore, how would data sovereignty affect whether Google holds its promise on notifying users?

The user could file a lawsuit in the UK about Google handing over their data without notification and proper jurisdiction. If Google UK employees were involved in handing over this data, they could be prosecuted and fined by the UK government.

Overall what I am hinting at is that this would incentivize Google to put in proper safeguards for non-US citizens. Currently they seem to be treated as a separate, non-protected category.

[13415]

You're essentially saying "Don't trust Google at all and ask your local government to put pressure on Google" and I agree with that but you frame it in a needlessly apologist way. If a company makes a promise and breaks it, that should always be a reason for concern, and the article is right for pointing that out.

[quadrifoliate]

Yeah, I'm sorry for coming off as a Google apologist. That wasn't my intention.

I'm merely saying that I'm skeptical that calling them out for breaking a promise is a useful path to go down. The alternate path (often proven to have been effective) is to pressure your non-US regulators into regulating them more. What I foresee is that this will either make Google follow more safeguards for everyone, or incentivize them to get out of non-US jurisdictions altogether.

[marcosdumay]

It's not anything close to minimal. Expecting a company to hold their promise against an authoritarian government is an extremely strong expectation.

It's even harder than people doing the same, because at the end of the day companies are a bunch of stuff that can be taken over and controlled by other people.