[ateeqs]

Funny, you seem to be "frustrated" a lot. ;)

A lot of peeps in HN seem to have this expectation that their data is somehow secure when they give it to a third-party. This is a completely false and an impossible expectation. To me, this _is_ and has been reality for a while. If an entity with resources really wants to get to your data, they will get to it. It doesn't matter if they steal or get a court order-- that, to them, is just semantics.

I'm not the one having trouble accepting this. It's just everyone suddenly realized this last week.

[ryguytilidie]

Wow, the degree to which you're reaching to make yourself feel to superior to strangers on the internet is honestly pretty scary.

No one "has an expectation that their data is completely secure when they give it to a third party", you literally just made that up. Regardless, this statement is still different from the original implication that people were "stupid" because they would give their data to Google and have the audacity to be upset that the government stole it. But hey, don't let me disrupt your snarky, disingenuous bullshit? Hopefully you pretending strangers on the internet you assigned emotions to are dumb and you are smart helped your issues.

Looking forward to utterly insane snarky sentence that completely ignores that you are laughably incorrect followed with an emoticon! ;)

[ateeqs]

Hehe, given that you have been constantly attacking me so far, I think it's the other way around: I think you feel you are somehow superior to me. :)

You also need to learn to quote properly since I did not claim anyone to be "stupid."

Also, it has not been shown that the government has stolen anything. People are upset that the government has an indirect mechanism to access their data. And I am saying that giving third-party your data implies that other entities will get to it if they want it.

Not looking forward to your ad-hominem reply. ;)

[ryguytilidie]

"Hehe, given that you have been constantly attacking me so far, I think it's the other way around: I think you feel you are somehow superior to me. :)"

"Wait guys, let me get this straight: You guys are not okay with the US government accessing your data that Google has, but you are somehow okay with sharing your data with Google?

I just see big "evil" vs small "evil." I'm not seeing much of a difference.

Also, would you be okay if another government had access to your data in Google's cloud?

You guys are probably not seeing the futility of it all."

If you can type those two things so close together, you literally have zero self awareness. This started with you actually having the gall to imply that strangers on the internet stupid because of an insane projection you made up. Now your brain has managed to twist you insulting random strangers into someone else trying to feel superior.

"Also, it has not been shown that the government has stolen anything. People are upset that the government has an indirect mechanism to access their data. And I am saying that giving third-party your data implies that other entities will get to it if they want it."

It takes a record breaking amount of obtuseness to claim that the government doesnt steal data and then saying "the government has an indirect mechanism to access this data". I genuinely am unable to accept that a human brain can cloud logical thought that much.

Anyway, you clearly are going to prop yourself up as superior in your own mind no matter how many times I quote you contradicting yourself and making no logical sense, so I'll leave you to whatever you hope to gain from being a disingenuous jerk to strangers on the internet over a point you quite literally made up...? Cheers.

[ateeqs]

I take the "ad-hominem reply" back-- It seems you are at the "name calling" stage of disagreement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Di...