Google Calendar is pretty cross-compatible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar

Fastmail's calendar works reasonably well. My two complaints with it:

- There isn't a convenient calendar widget; Google's calendar widget only works with Google's calendar. I'd like something exactly like Google's calendar widget but working with Fastmail's calendar.

- Sites that integrate with Google Calendar but not with arbitrary CalDAV servers.

I could live without the latter, but the former is a dealbreaker; I'd switch given a functional widget that is fully self-contained and doesn't require some separate sync app.

The article indicates even Meta pushed back on some of these:

> Unlike Thomas-Johnson, users in that case were given the chance to fight the subpoena because they were made aware of it before Meta complied.

Fastmail is Australian, though?

It reflects even worse on Google for vacuuming up and keeping the data.

They can’t really refuse to hand over the data, but they could purge and stop collecting identifying data on Americans. As is, they are tacitly complicit by collecting data they know will be used against protesters.

Let's be real, if a bigtech ignored judicial orders, whether you would describe it as "fighting autocracy" or "corporate fascism" is 100% dependent on who is currently in office

Google is a multi trillion dollar company, not a scrappy libertarian upstart ready to gamble everything in court

giant private companies like Google are not ever going to be involved with defying court orders, especially ones that do lots of business with the federal government (which will be just about any company even half of google's size). You can say it's wrong or whatever but it's like asking a brick wall to do an Irish jig.

The only solution to this problem is for the US to have a vastly more active anti-monopoly regime so that companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. are simply not allowed to exist at such scales where consumers are locked into them.

Because it’s important context for understanding what the “point” of the article is. It could be any of:

- reporting on google’s violation of privacy laws or handing over info they weren’t required to

- reporting on the US government’s abuse of existing process that Google was legally required to comply with but ought to have challenged

- calling attention to investigatory legal practices that are normal and above-board but the author of the article wishes they were otherwise.

Some of these are motives are closer to the journalism end of the spectrum and some of them are closer to advocacy. I interpret this article as the third bucket but I wish it were clearer about the intent and what they are actually attempting to convey. The fact that the article is not clear about the actual law here (for example, was this a judicial subpoena?) makes me trust it less.

> They certainly don't allow ICE to enter a private abode.

I'd just note that ICE is (falsely) claiming otherwise these days.

https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-...

"Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches."

This is more aimed at individuals or smaller actors that may be getting subpoenas from ICE.

There is actually a legal standing for DHS to issue these administrative warrants on corporations in this way.

According to this article, it is treated as a request and often denied by the company. The target of the warrant did go to court to quash it, but that was already after Google declined to share the information.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/02/03/hom...

edit: it appears that either 1. the Washington Post is printing misinformation, or 2. I have made a grave misinterpretation.

The "net" refers here to "the good that Google does" (e.g., some pretty impressive networking research) is outweighed by "the bad that Google does," such as the linked article.

Nothing is pure evil or pure good. Gauging where on the scale a person or group lies is really hard, and subjective.

So, I try and keep score on the big players, but understand that my judgement is fallible.

Blizzard is a bunch of sex pests and Microsoft is the guys with the AI upsells on every inch of their OS...

How far back do you have to go for Microsoft to be seen as "good" the way Google was?

Blizzard ~10 years ago, maybe. Microslop has always been one of the worst. I don't understand why anyone would have a positive disposition towards Microslop.

yep re blizzard. they've gotten lots better since the msft acquisition, based on my (limited) experiences with the newer employees there.

They have contracts with Palantir.

Come back in 2-3 years. I bet will be one of the worst if still around

Degenerate gambling company.

Agreed. Nvidia too maybe? That said, Nvidia is highly competitive and has built a walled garden via their software so I have mixed feelings.

It's almost like there should be some third party that represents people who could regulate companies like Google and prevent them from becoming too big. Maybe there are some examples from US history where some such third party existed.

We're on the forum where people are most capable of doing this for themselves.

And if your company uses GMail that is less than ideal for de-Googling, but it does not meaningfully impact the benefits of de-Googling your personal life.

Refusing to run all your search history, personal transactions, and correspondences through one of the fascist state's pet companies is still beneficial.

I'm guessing your constraint is impossible as living in the US pretty much requires banking and working with companies that will gladly give government agencies your information. I severely doubt that tech is the only group doing this.

Is there any evidence that Apple fights administrative subpoenas issued by US federal agencies?

Or is Google just more transparent than Apple about the government orders it complies with?

For example, after the Department of Justice demanded app stores remove apps that people use to track ICE deployments, Apple was the first to comply, followed later by Google.

Are they going to stop because a company fights a subpoena? Or perhaps in the case of some touted alternatives, even if a subpoena were acted upon, no data would be intelligible?

Maybe they'll just show up to your house next time. I'm not sure why people complain about US companies complying with US government subpoenas. Isn't that how it is supposed to work? Imagine if the opposite were routine, would you like that?

People want to stop using Gmail to feel agency in a situation where the real problem is their own government. The real answer thus lies in deeply reforming a federal government that really both sides of the aisle (in their own way) agree has gotten too powerful and out of control.

Alternatively, use them pseudonymously? There's little reason any of these companies need to know your real identity. This will both reduce the likelihood of ICE finding your account from a real-life interaction, as well as reduce the likelihood of ICE finding your real-life identity if they do get your account data (they'd at least need to dig through it more than just going by first/last name on the account itself).

> Don't use products from large US tech companies?

What does large have to do with it? Why do you think smaller companies are any more likely to resist? If anything, they have even less resources to go to court.

And why do you think other countries are any better? If you use a French provider, and they get a French judicial requisition or letters rogatory, then do you think the outcome is going to be any different?

I mean sure if you're avoiding ICE specifically, then using anything non-American is a start. But similarly, in you're in France and want to protect yourself, then using products from American companies without a presence in France is similarly a good strategy.

Google, among most other tech companies, deny portions of administrative warrants. Here's a story about someone who was stressed out about their notification by Google (spoiler, Google decided to deny the government's request)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/02/03/hom...

edit: It appears that this outcome is an outlier and most admin warrants are honored. It is unfortunate to see the Washington Post decline in reliability like this.

There is a case to be made that administrative subpoenas can be good. They save taxpayers money, they speed up investigations, and they free up the court for more important matters.

As with all things though, these agencies should not be self-regulated without civilian and judicial oversight.

I'm getting tired of these comments that normalize being in the middle of the slippery slope as if it is merely the same as being at the top of the slippery slope was. They may not have been "good" times, but they were certainly better times when government agencies at least aimed to carry out their roles in good faith rather than minmaxing the rules to cause the most damage to enemies of the Party. Applying judgement while exercising delegated authority is exactly why these agencies were given wide leeway in the first place. And while we can say this was naive, it is even more naive to normalize the current behavior.

Isn't that why the scare quotes are there?

DHS/ICE is in a weird constitutional spot. Most immigration violations in the US are _civil_ violations. So the Fourth Amendment is less applicable. It's also why detained immigrants don't automatically get the right to be represented by a lawyer.

ICE/DHS technically are just acting as marshals, merely ensuring that defendants appear at court proceedings and then enforcing court decisions (deportations).

I don't think it's as simple as "corps. = bad". It's more that naive slogans like "don't be evil" used to be taken seriously. Companies exist to make money. This is ok! It generally works well in a capitalistic system. But to expect more than that people are realizing is a pipe dream... which is why you need good rules in place (i.e., regulations, laws) to direct companies and their behaviors.

Not really. HN had its Eternal September moment years ago.