Remember that Google's goal is not to improve security but to win over more customers, in other words make you choose their service over another company's service, even over a much more secure one. This kind of campaign to improve is what might tip over many potential costumers and choose Google after all, contrary to all rational thinking. It's cheap to do for Google given their internal resources, it's simply necessary in order to keep a foot in the market and so it's nothing unexpected or generous, and therefore it's definitely nothing to get excited about as a potential customer.
The question is: Is it good enough to keep the spooks from not looking? Answer: Probably not. So move along.
I live near 5 nuclear plants (120km radius), of which one (KKW Stade) has been taken off the net a few years back. Now my government is going to shut down two more plants (Krümmel and Brunsbüttel) because of the INES 6 event in Fukushima. And I can tell you that with each reactor shutting down I feel more relieved.
The big irony is that it's going to make no difference to the supply of electric energy in my country. That's all bullshit lies. Germany is going to export a little less electricty to other countries now. Which means the electricity cartel is making a little less money. Crocodile's tears.
I'm not sure what's so complicated about this.
You really don't know? It's complicated to get it error-free onto your PC! Red Book has no reliable error detection mechanism like Yellow Book.
So why should I buy an Audio CD if I'm never going to listen to it anyway? But only rip it once or twice. They're simply a nuisance compared to downloaded music files. Please, go listen to some vinyl, grandpa.
MP3 doesn't use fixed linear quantization. So the whole concept of using a lossy codec on 24bit audio is shady. The bitdepth for a given sample depends on what the encoder thought was the enough. And so MP3s or AAC in that respect can be decoded to 16bit or 24bit, but what dynamic range the audio really maintened is not up to the decoder anymore.
Yet I heard a rumor Apple already uses 24bit sources to convert to AAC, but the audible benefits are non-existant, as there are no audible benefits from switching from 16 bit to 24 bit PCM for listening. 16bit sourced AAC is different to 24bit sourced AAC, but 24bit sourced AAC has a lesser dynamic range than the original, in fact it should come very close to the dynamic range of a 16 bit sourced AAC file.
The only benefit is that when you already have 24 bit lossless files in your data center it would be totally superfluous to quantizie them to 16bit before the lossy encoding, since all modern lossy encoders that are relevant accept 24 bit input.