> these things seem not to apply to Google?

So first show that Google spies, then show that spying is harmful, then show that Google's spying has done specific harms? You sure have high standards.

Now could you explain how the risks and dangers of surveillance don't apply to the surveillance done by Google? Are they somehow immune to government warrants? Are you privy to all of their business decisions, to know that they never abused their vast access to data to enrich themselves at the expense of others? Should we keep handing over all our data to them, and just hope that they'll stay benevolent indefinitely?

It looks to me like you don't want to understand.

Of course I can't prove that Google hasn't done anything wrong. I don't believe that. Google is criticized all the time for various things they did. Sometimes they change what they do in response to criticism.

They also have a lot of power that could be abused. I like to make a distinction between potential and actual harm, though. Almost everything you do in civilization involves trusting other people to do things for you. Including keeping secrets. Sometimes that trust is broken, but a trustless society isn't possible.

Snark and swearing aside, this is at least criticism of a couple of specific things that Google software does.

I'm often annoyed by this stuff, but on the other hand if you gave in, I doubt anything particularly bad would happen?