On the other hand, it only takes one subpoena to get everything about you.
>but they have taken steps to encrypt your information going between data centers in order to prevent NSA snooping.
True, but that doesn't help if someone is worried about Google's snooping?
And that's assuming perfectly legal might is all you're worrying about...
Sure but first, they would have to actually find out who those providers are. Without a central service like Google tracking everything you do online, it would be extremely hard to link 5 different email accounts to one person and then to forum user MMARules22 who has been posting on an anti-GMO forum. Google also makes it easier for people to subpoena private information in a lawsuit and then leak potentially embarrassing items to the media.
As I'm sure people are aware :-
1. Google DNS tracks all domain queries 2. Chrome basically key logs everything you type into the search bar. 3. Android tracks calls, messages, IMs, emails.. 4. Google Fiber has the potential to track even more content
If there were lets say 20 different services, there would be NO way to connect email account foo@email.com with a forum posting from member RedSpike93 to a search for "escorts in miami". Google engineers have already been fired for stalking teens, accessing private info, etc.
Heck, its kind of unbelievable that not too long ago, Netscape was sued for "only" tracking what users downloaded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specht_v._Netscape_Communicatio....
"I haven't been judged guilty yet, so the courts have no right to gather evidence"
>"I haven't been judged guilty yet, so the courts have no right to gather evidence"
You can only know that the requested information is evidence of something when you actually receive it. That is a very high bar.
However, anything can be subpoenaed as long as it has some vague notion of relevance. Under that less-stricter criteria, a general "electronic communication" subpoena sent to Google includes a much larger set of data, most of which, is useless, but might contain embarrassing information that could be leaked to the media to smear someone.
You're not constitutionally protected from any invasion of privacy; the 4th amendment requires that authorities explain what they're looking for when they apply for a search warrant. Obviously Google services are not ideal for everyone, and could become less suitable depending on the future evolution of the political climate wherever one happens to be, but for a lot of people what you describe is just not a practical problem.
If there were lets say 20 different services, there would be NO way to connect email account foo@email.com with a forum posting from member RedSpike93 to a search for "escorts in miami".
OK, then use 20 different services. For other people, the utility of convenience and vertical integration outweighs the utility of keeping private their searches for 'rubber duckie kitchenware'. (Disclaimer: I have never actually searched for rubber duckie kitchenware)
And that's an incredibly valid concern, but at the same time, when you look at the other baskets and they're falling apart and have holes in the bottom, it's easy to see why people put those eggs where they do.
As others have said, the single-basket concern is perfectly valid. The reason you're getting pushback because you have a single-minded focus on that one concern and vehemently deny the possibility that there might be tradeoffs. That comes across as an irrational attachment to a single issue, even if what you're really trying to say is that your assessment that enough other baskets have hit a good-enough baseline that diversification is a good strategy. The latter is something you could have a productive conversation about. As for the former, you can insist that multiple baskets are the only thing that matter until you're blue in the face, but I doubt you will convince anyone.