> Because Google states that it will comply with such orders.
So Google saying that it will lie to me means that they aren't going lying to me? OK
> I already explained why 'designing a system so you can't comply with an NSL' is a nonstarter.
No, you gave a poor excuse as to why Google won't do it. That doesn't mean it can't be done. In fact, many other organizations do it all the time. Google simply chooses not to.
Sharing your data in exactly the way they describe in their privacy policy is not lying. You may disagree with the policy, but that doesn't let you redefine words.
And yes there are providers that claim to offer such security. I've already explained why such offerings are unappealing to a large swath of consumers. There are mutually exclusive features that are more appealing to a wider group of consumers.
Are you saying that Google is wrong to respond to consumer demand?
> Sharing your data in exactly the way they describe in their privacy policy is not lying.
But they refuse to tell me when my data has been compromised. They also say that my data is stored securely, when it is not. That is lying.
> Are you saying that Google is wrong to respond to consumer demand?
Not at all. I'm saying that Google could build their systems in such a way that they can't comply with an NSL. The reasons why they choose not to are irrelevant. It matters that they made that choice. Additionally, there is no reason that they couldn't make it optional.
>But they refuse to tell me when my data has been compromised.
Yes, they will not share when your data is requested under an NSL until that NSL is lifted. This is stated clearly. Every other service provider is exactly the same way. No matter who your service provider is, they will act in the same way: possibly attempt to fight the order, turn the data over, and not tell you about it until the order is lifted. The only difference is that with certain end to end encrypted services, the data they hand over may not be useful (or it may be, metadata is often valuable and often can't be secured the same way). In other words, your super secure e2e encrypted mail service is still going to have to give user logs to the NSA, and they still won't tell you about it.
So if that's what you consider lying, then literally every company in the US government's jurisdiction will lie to you about when certain data about you has been compromised. In other words, such a definition of "lying" is vacuous, and I'd ask you to give an example of a company either real or theoretical that does what you ask.
>They also say that my data is stored securely, when it is not. That is lying.
This, once again, comes down to your definition of securely. Your threat model is different than the average users'. To the average user, their data is stored securely. (Note: I'm also not sure where this claim is made, feel free to cite the place you're thinking of, I expect that Google is quite explicit in what they mean by "secure").
>Additionally, there is no reason that they couldn't make it optional.
Elsewhere you stated that you believe Google has backdoored your device via Gapps and is secretly transferring your data to their servers despite your having opted out.
In this thread you've stated that you believe that Google " lies about what they do with data, or how they collect it", despite having no evidence of them either lying about what they do with data (as I've demonstrated at this point, they are crystal clear about what they do with data, you just have ideological disagreements with those things), nor any evidence of them lying about what data they collect (you haven't even provided supposed examples of this).
Am I supposed to believe that if Google did provide such a feature, we wouldn't be having this exact same conversation, but with you stating that Google's secure option was secretly backdoored, and they had access to your data anyway?
To be frank, you are wasting my time by repeatedly ignoring the facts that I've outlined. Providing poor excuses for why these facts are, doesn't negate them as facts. If you'd like to continue discussing these facts, feel free to hit me up on the side, but I'm not going to engage in this thread any more.
So Google saying that it will lie to me means that they aren't going lying to me? OK
> I already explained why 'designing a system so you can't comply with an NSL' is a nonstarter.
No, you gave a poor excuse as to why Google won't do it. That doesn't mean it can't be done. In fact, many other organizations do it all the time. Google simply chooses not to.