I'm fairly sure you'd have a better idea if this was the case than would I...

Yahoo! divulging of a user's identity was about the only example that Jane and Joe Public knew of such complicity until the Google affair ignited enough concern to create work for hundreds of Congressional staffers. So did Google's action actually result in a net good overall?

What does one do if one sells too much of one's company to people only interested in profit, and then ethical though not legal dilemmas arise? Would Google execs be guilty of harming profitability if they had not offered a Chinese Weasel version? Yet now they might be guilty of harming the business if they continue to offer it, due to (at least) negative PR. So didn't we all move in a net positive direction due to Google's initial actions?

I'm not agreeing with the actions, just suggesting that a clever company leader might use this as a device to get someone else (the U.S. public) to make a decision he didn't really care to make.

Feasible? Or did I have too many Conspiracy-Frosted Sugar Bombs for breakfast?