It's one thing to care about privacy issues, it's another to believe (and react to, and soapbox about) a distorted and inaccurate version of reality. A lot of the "nerd rage" has involved people assuming facts that may not in fact be true. People who do this marginalize themselves. In general we call them "conspiracy theorists."

For the facts that do indeed turn out to be true, soapbox away.

As I have seen it used, "nerd rage" is really just a way of saying "if you care about this, you are a nerd", which is implicitly wrong. If the intent is to call into question the accuracy of statements, then there are better ways to do that.

You're suggesting that the idea of Google as a tool for the NSA is a marginal interest on HN?

No, I am talking about much less specific interests, as his use of the phrase is similarly broad.

Nor does his attempt to marginalize an interest imply that the interest is marginalized on HN. It concerns me that you are so eager to misread others' comments, and defend comments that contain no substance, only name-calling.

What does it mean that it "concerns you"?

What kind of comment is that? What do you think it means?

I'll give you a hint and tell you one of the things it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean "surprises me".

I really doubt Google is going to play chicken about something so serious as giving away all their user data. Is it incomprehensible to you that they are telling the truth?

The problem Google has is that a huge number of their users -- those in foreign countries -- have (finally) realised what has been public knowledge for years: they have no legal protection at all from the US government examining data Google holds about them and that Google readily comply with such requests and aren't really in a position to do much else. 'Telling the truth' involves restating this truth in the full glare of worldwide publicity. The more they try to reassure americans that everything they did was 'legal'[1] and only targeted foreigners, the more foreigners they alienate.

So from a PR perspective I don't see how Google can fix this unless US law substantially changes (or they employ crypto on the users side but that undermines the economics of much of their business).

[1] I'm not convinced that it is legal under EU data protection law and Google does have a presence in the EU, but I'm no lawyer.

>Telling the truth' involves restating this truth in the full glare of worldwide publicity. The more they try to reassure americans that everything they did was 'legal'[1] and only targeted foreigners, the more foreigners they alienate

I'm sorry but where are you getting this from? Google has categorically stated that they do not share data without court approved mandates. There is no mass "targeting" that is going on, no matter what the nationality.

> "employ crypto on the users side but that undermines the economics of much of their business"

This is true, at least in Google's situation. However I think there is an untapped market of people that want to be advertised to, provided the advertising is relevant.

Surprisingly I think traditional print magazines actually have this figured out. The advertisements for designer clothing, watches, and booze get a lot of readership in "gentleman/bachelor/whatever" magazines (not sure what the correct term there is, not trying to refer to porn (well, except Playboy)) and I suspect that removing them would actually damage their subscription rates. Now, these adverts obviously are not targeted to the individual, but I think they nevertheless demonstrate the concept.