Where does the article conflate Google with a governmental body?
With the implicit assumption that there is any expectation or obligation for Google to conform to some level of openness, especially in (relatively) new products, as if it were paid for with taxpayer money and they owe us something in return. We can say that we wish it were more open, or that we won't use it because it isn't open, but I don't understand the attitude that they are committing some colossal ethical lapse or failing some social contract by not having it be more open at this stage.
The EFF is correct. Google is in lock step with the US governments plans of the complete erosion of our privacy rights. Google knows a lot about us all and the feds want that info.
It isn't accurate to state that the US government "plans the complete erosion of our privacy rights".
It certainly seems as if it does. They repeatedly pursue strategies to gain access to private data and actively work against compromise or safeguards. If that is too strong, I think everyone has to agree that shoring up privacy rights is something they are clearly hindering.