I agree.

Reading that logic - we need to be able to keep all your search data for much longer so that we can, uh, track flu season - sounds strangely reminiscent of the Australian government's logic that they need to be able to filter the internet so that they can keep out child pornography. In both cases, a party is making a huge grab for power using a somewhat innocuous reason that's framed as being hard to oppose.

I'm not sure, but I think this community opined on it slightly differently when they Aussies were doing it...

I would agree that Page is probably being intellectually dishonest in his argument that H1N1 is a prime example of why Google should be allowed to retain data longer, but I don't think your comparison holds. At its core, what you're describing is taking away the privileges of very many people to potentially (dubiously, in my opinion--I do hate "think of the children" crusades) protect a few people. The debate surrounding Google and data retention is more about Google taking some risks with the privacy of the consumers who use it in order to take actions that will benefit it long-term--and which I strongly believe can and will benefit its consumers as well.

Sure, there's potential for abuse here, but that's true of all technology. I don't think we, as hackers, should let that hold society back when there are valuable things to gain from its advance.