&gt; Time to stop asking questions.<p><i>Absolutely</i> not. Vigilance often keeps allies who might turn on you from turning on you, and -when it fails to do that- it alerts you to their treachery. This is why I <i>asked</i> for evidence of Google&#x27;s treachery, rather than dismissing the possibility.<p>In <i>any</i> significant conflict it is <i>very</i> wise to have an idea of who your stalwart allies are, and who you are able to currently rely on.<p>Any ally can turn on you at any time. That&#x27;s human nature. However, the man who allows himself <i>no</i> allies is far weaker and far more susceptible to attack than the man who has some.<p>Like any ally, Google may one day turn on us. For the past several decades, examination of the reports from people working in a <i>variety</i> of positions inside the organization leads us to understand that -despite the fact that Google is a huge advertising company- it realizes that insecure computers and computer systems hurt them at <i>least</i> as much as they hurt everyone else. Those reports also lead us to understand that Google works <i>really</i> hard to ensure that the software that it relies on and the software that it produces is as secure as it can be reasonably made, given the resources Google has available.<p>If this confuses you, think of it this way: Google makes money by keeping the data that it collects on you (and the analysis of that data) secure and out of the hands of <i>everyone</i> outside of Google. Because they use commodity hardware and software in the regular course of their business, they find themselves testing and fixing issues in software and -sometimes- hardware that we all use.<p>Because there is no competitive advantage for them to withhold those fixes (indeed, doing so makes <i>everyone</i> safer and keeps them using their computers, which keeps delicious data flowing into Google&#x27;s robots), Google publishes these fixes on a regular basis.<p>I look forward to your cogent reply.