IMO some danger comes from Google, or perhaps a future version of Google; however a real danger that exists right now is that Google's data is used by the US government in a manner that breaks constitutional protections. I do agree that there is much convenience to be had, but we could have the same, if we started with the assumption that users did not want their behavior logged, but that they could opt into it. The current standard with Google is that if you have a Google Account, then you agree to what data they harvest. Imagine if Comcast said that if you use their service, they can similarly harvest your data. Where I live, my internet options are limited to AT&T or Comcast. If they both had the same conditions, I would have no choice for an internet that doesn't record my behavior.
There is some danger- but placing the blame on Google here is ridiculous. If the worst thing that Google does at the moment is comply with government requests for information, shouldn't the onus be on the government to change, not Google? I'm sure this is analogous to something more apt than gun manufacturers, but at the very least it matches that situation. It's not the tool's fault, it's the user's.
I am comfortable with blaming them both. But yes, the US government holds the greater responsibility. I am not of the opinion that poor legislation or enforcement is a comprehensive excuse for unseemly corporate behavior. We make the world we live in. Google more than most. That comes with responsibility. I know they recognize that, but they have a hard time doing so at times when profit is in the balance. There is an argument to be made, however, that a lack of legislation creates incentive for companies to compete in ways that compromise their users. In that case, the market selects for what is legal, as undesirable as it might be.
The questions worth asking are- what are the circumstances that lead to something being asked for? What happens if a crime occurs on google chat or facebook chat- then is it alright to have the data released? What if I say I never murdered the person with a knife I ordered on Amazon the week before, that I deny ever owning such a knife- then is it ok for Amazon to out me? It's easy to say "Private data shouldn't be brought into the public sphere" and smugly sit back, but that is the entire judicial process. My testimony, tax returns, words, and ideas are my property, but no one would dream that if someone is brought to court for tax evasion then it's an invasion of privacy to see what they filed for. No one would keep a witness from testifying because an assault happened in a supermarket and therefore it's the supermarket's data. It's very easy to call this behavior "unseemly" when you imagine that Google is just letting the government check what porn its employees are looking at. But there is a point at which Google not giving up data is just withholding evidence. Drawing that line in the sand is not easy, and I do not envy the lawyers at Google who just what is allowed and what isn't.I am not of the opinion that poor legislation or enforcement is a comprehensive excuse for unseemly corporate behavior.
"Unseemly corporate behavior?" If I had some sort of private hubski page that I never invited anyone to (I assume private pages will come at some point) and it turned out I was keeping notes on there regarding my spree of cell phone robberies, you would keep that from a judge?
Yes. There's too many examples of philathropists trying to make the world a better place with money earned while making the world a worse place. I just don't buy the "Don't hate the player, hate the game." argument. At times I think it's reasonable to hate them both.