I used Google as an example but it could very well be any corporation - local or international - and unless you believe every company in the world is a part of PRISM or is handing data to the government, my example holds but without the specifics.

Thank you for bringing up this point though, I was hoping someone would (and you can choose to not believe me if you like). Making the connection of major companies to government surveillance outside of the security-minded (ie. people who keep up or are educated on the Snowden leaks) wouldn't make this connection. Which I treat as supporting evidence for my speculation on why the "common layman" doesn't care.

I think your overall point is accurate and would go further to add that there is an ironic safety in storing my data with "hostile" nations (or corporations associated with them) over nations that are "friendly" and readily exchanging data with my own.

The US is in fact far more likely to imprison/traumatize one of its citizens over one of its many obscure technicalities (whether actually violated or not) than say NK is to attempt to use data to somehow pressure that US citizen.

Trying to decipher the underlying perspective of the article, I also find mirth in the apparent angst of all the secret agents and their sponsors; they have no idea what corporation will screw up their cover. Joseph Conrad would be proud of our progress even if it is marginal.

That's an excellent point. Private companies that create markets for buying and selling your information are going to lose exclusivity over that information--perhaps routinely.