> Meanwhile, Google hid Dragonfly from the internal team that was supposed to review it's projects for ethics issues. And it was pressure from journalists No.

> Meanwhile, Google hid Dragonfly from the internal team that was supposed to review it's projects for ethics issues. And it was pressure from journalists No. It was pressure from employees, employees who had ethical concerns. Employees who, I'll note, you consistently badmouth for continuing to work at Google. It's not like a journalist just magically inferred that Dragonfly was a thing one day and wrote an article one day. And Congress had almost nothing to do with it, lmao. > The government doesn't "police themselves", the system of checks and balances ensures one branch polices another That's true for things that aren't FOIA. But you mentioned FOIA. Which exists as a way for the executive to police themselves. The courts do exist as a check on the executive, (and local governments). So again, how are those stingray FOIA requests going? Note also that "law enforcement" is an FOIA exemption. > This was a recent story I read: https://cdt.org/blog/digital-is-different-pole-camera-ruling.. https://cdt.org/blog/digital-is-different-pole-camera-ruling.... This was a targeted piece of tracking that requires a warrant. Dragnet monitoring often does not require a warrant. In other words, setting up a single camera to monitor a single house needs a warrant. Setting up a hundred cameras to monitor the public doesn't, although getting data from them to target a specific person might, at least if it was being used to imprison them. When was the last time Google imprisoned anyone again? It's also really, really amusing to see you claim that Google is subject to no public accountability. There are absolutely ways you could try to hold Google accountable, if you actually think that they've done something wrong. You just need to be able to convince a Judge. Same as for the executive branch of the government.