Again: no one denied receiving 702 orders, the point of contention about PRISM isn't that entities receiving data requests knew they were receiving them, it's that they grant the government "direct access" which they denied and still deny.
No need to go out of your way to provide rationales, this person is most likely misrepresenting himself.
Google employees are usually smart, this person isn't. I mean even at face value his logic is unsound: all mobile services are cloud supported, there is no conflict between being mostly about mobile and providing developers with a backend on which to build their wares, which in any case are also increasingly mobile.
Anyone can append a disclaimer to an anonymous comment claiming all sort of stuff.
Also one would expect Google employees to be smart his/her comment conveys the opposite: there is no inherent conflict between being mostly about mobile while providing developers with a backend on which to build their wares which are also becoming increasingly mobile.
There is a large amount of malice targeted at Google and much of it manifests in HN comments, as this threat would suggest.
That Guardian piece was wrong and ill conceived and in minimizing their backtracking (they didn't even change the headline) they did themselves a disservices: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140319/17162326629/dont-f...