I appreciate your thoughts here. I'm amused by the fact that we're both looking at this from a "lesser of two evils" perspective and coming to different conclu

I appreciate your thoughts here. I'm amused by the fact that we're both looking at this from a "lesser of two evils" perspective and coming to different conclusions. The reality is they both just suck. The degrees of suck exist, but I don't even want to be debating it when we're in this deep on privacy violations. MS sucks because of the residual arrogance of the average MSFT employee, and their failures on data colleciton. GOOG sucks because of the privacy disconnect between the officers and the engineers. I don't understand how they can have some of the talent they do working on "privacy" when their executive can be such an ass. "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions [...] They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next" "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" "people who take issue with their homes appearing online can just move after Google cars photograph their homes or businesses" I really want to understand why some of the security experts they have would enter into this kind of faustian deal. Is it the nice car & the expensive mortgage eventually overcomes all ideals? I appreciate that Chrome is probably one of the best private browsers available today. But if your motivation truly is privacy and if the company funding your work has its principal revenue source in advertising, where do you draw the line? Where is the threshold where your sacrifice in principles is no longer worth the opportunity to work on "privacy"?