If it was something intended to be public there is no harm in Google having it (they will scrape it off the web anyway) as the NSA are welcome to publicly access the content.
Most people don't treat Dropbox/Google/Facebook (non-public) usage as being equivalent to CCing the government but maybe they should.
Pro-tip: anything you put on any service can and probably will at some point scroll past the eyes of a random sysadmin who's debugging why the database keeps crashing under load.
Most people are worried about "disclosure" - which is something Uber violated for a PR stunt at a party recently - i.e. we're usually okay wandering past the window naked, because we assume it's extraordinarily unlikely that someone will be pointing a camera at it right then, or that it wouldn't be more embarrassing for them to try and yell "hey that person is naked in the window I saw them!"
Conversely, we wouldn't be happy if someone did take photos, then uploaded them to the web, and showed them to all our friends etc.
In a practical sense, this is how people act. It's how you have to act - it would be practically neurotic to act any other way.
There is an interesting branding question here. Imagine an alternate history where all our historical footage of Stalin or Hitler all had Google watermarks.
To be honest, he's not looking for privacy for this statement. He's looking for exactly the opposite, so using the thing that doesn't care for privacy doesn't matter for this instance.
