From PBS Frontline's "United States Of Secrets" (part 2)[1]: LIZ FIGUEROA, (D) State Senator, CA, 1998-06: We walk into this room, and it’s myself and

From PBS Frontline's "United States Of Secrets" (part 2)[1]: LIZ FIGUEROA, (D) State Senator, CA, 1998-06: We walk into this room, and it’s myself and two of my staff— my chief of staff and one of my attorneys. And across from us was Larry, Sergey, and their attorney. All of a sudden, Sergey started talking to me. He said, “Senator, how would you feel if a robot went into your home and read your diary and read your financial records, read your love letters, read everything, but before leaving the house, it imploded?” And he said, “That’s not violating privacy.” I immediately said, “Of course it is. Yes, it is.” And he said, “No, it isn’t. Nothing’s kept. Nobody knows about it.” I said, “That robot has read everything. Does that robot know if I’m sad or if I’m feeling fear, or what’s happening?” And he looked at me and he said, “Oh, no. That robot knows a lot more than that.” If the robot really imploded without any benefit to Google, why were they paying to manufacture use it? If Google truly doesn't use the purchasing data to sell ads, why did they pay their expensive engineers to develop the tools to extract the data from email receipts? [1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/united-states-of-secrets/transcript/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/united-states-of-sec...