From PBS Frontline&#x27;s &quot;United States Of Secrets&quot; (part 2):<p><pre><code>    LIZ FIGUEROA, (D) State Senator, CA, 1998-06: We walk into this room, and it’s myself
    and two of my staff— my chief of staff and one of my attorneys. And across from us
    was Larry, Sergey, and their attorney.

    All of a sudden, Sergey started talking to me. He said, “Senator, how would you feel
    if a robot went into your home and read your diary and read your financial records,
    read your love letters, read everything, but before leaving the house, it imploded?”
    And he said, “That’s not violating privacy.”

    I immediately said, “Of course it is. Yes, it is.” And he said, “No, it isn’t.
    Nothing’s kept. Nobody knows about it.” I said, “That robot has read everything.
    Does that robot know if I’m sad or if I’m feeling fear, or what’s happening?”
    And he looked at me and he said, “Oh, no. That robot knows a lot more than that.”
</code></pre>
Of course, what that ridiculous robot analogy leaves out is that to be useful, <i>something</i> has to be reported back to Google; if the &quot;implosion&quot; prevented <i>all</i> of the data from returning to Google, there would be no point in sending the robot.<p>&gt; Nobody knows about it.<p>This idea that no <i>person</i> knows about it is suspiciously similar to the word games the NSA plays with their claims of only needing a warrant once a human searches for something they already captured and stored.