It's a relief to see that people at Google made this call, but for a specific reason. One of the times I perceived that I was being given the option to be read

It's a relief to see that people at Google made this call, but for a specific reason. One of the times I perceived that I was being given the option to be read-in to some spooky stuff on a client site my view at the time was the IC should do their job, and civilian security folks should do ours. I said that they don't need us to compromise our work if they are good enough at theirs, it's an equilibrium. When I work for them, I'll work for them, but when I work for customers, I work for customers. The world doesn't need more compromised people. I also didn't buy the "if you only knew/ticking bomb" arguments, because they know they have jobs to do and they aren't going to let some civvy contractor geek stand in their way. I'm sure I lost a lot of professional opportunity as a result, but you have to ask what it is you're protecting. If companies who provide products that citizens trust are being subordinated to the IC to spy on them, just what does the IC think it's protecting? When the IC "misses" open secrets like Epstein's blackmail ring, human trafficking coyotes, compromised politicians, the total infiltration and compromise of universities and public institutions by foreign influenced operators, election integrity issues, and economy altering money laundering operations in plain sight, just what job is it they are doing again? We need an IC and general guardian class certainly, but the point is to protect the integrity of the nation. Civilians and companies aren't game pieces, and if they are, I don't think the IC wants the accountability that comes with that. Imo, Google made the right call in this situation.