There is literally no evidence anyone could provide you, that would make you change your opinion.
And I can't claim that I'm much different, if I'm honest, unless Google execs admit to it. Or unless journalists discover examples of prosecutors admitting evidence in some court, to convict someone, based on data that could only have been acquired with Google being complicit.
You seem to forget that Google pulled out of China, rather than comply. How much money did they leave on the table, there?
It's not Google's fault you only started looking for the information after Snowden's stuff.
You should calm down a bit and try to adopt more reasonable stances if you actually hope to make a difference.
As to that specific question, I bet it's because Google's Privacy Policy says:
> We will share personal information with companies, organizations or individuals outside of Google if we have a good-faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary to:
> meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request.
Lavabit's policy[1] said:
> [...] we will not surrender any private information without a court order; [...].
... so I guess they kind of indicated that they could be convinced to share private information, although they didn't do it in the form of a positive assertion like Google.
1. http://web.archive.org/web/20130805154359/http://lavabit.com...
To the contrary, they have utter regard for your privacy. They advocate for governments to have more respect for your privacy, as well.
Alfred knows everything about Bruce Wayne. Google is Alfred, except he doesn't even take a salary - he wants to show you advertising that you would think is high quality, and he promises to never sell your personal information to the advertisers. Pretty damned good deal, if you ask me.