But would each employee working at a company found to be money laundering have their personal accounts shut down?
Google goes out of their way to associate people's accounts and identities. Even if you have work and personal Google Accounts, you should assume that Google knows they're the same person. For example, Google wants you to login to their Youtube App on Roku. If you choose not to but have it open at the same time someone opens Youtube on their phone, the two communicate and you'll get prompted to login. Even if you choose not to login, the two apps share information and cross pollinate watch histories and suggestions.
Google also makes it difficult/costly to properly lock down their development tools. You can't for example lock down your developer console or cloud account to accounts with specific domains. You also can't take ownership of your domain outside of a Workplaces Subscription in the same way you can with Apple's ABM tool.
At the same time Google requires you to consolidate all of your company assets into one basket. You can't have different developer consoles so an employee or contractor working on Project X might have access to aspects of Project Y because the console permissions aren't granular enough. So there's no plausible deniability for Project Y when a Bad Actor working on Project X is identified.
You can't even insulate projects on Google's tools as there is a 1:1 relationship between their Play Console, Cloud Console, and a singular Cloud Project. So again absolutely no plausible deniability.
What you end up with is a situation where if a user does something Google doesn't like, Google decides how large of a net to cast over that user's network graph when bringing down the ban hammer.
Google goes out of their way to associate people's accounts and identities. Even if you have work and personal Google Accounts, you should assume that Google knows they're the same person. For example, Google wants you to login to their Youtube App on Roku. If you choose not to but have it open at the same time someone opens Youtube on their phone, the two communicate and you'll get prompted to login. Even if you choose not to login, the two apps share information and cross pollinate watch histories and suggestions.
Google also makes it difficult/costly to properly lock down their development tools. You can't for example lock down your developer console or cloud account to accounts with specific domains. You also can't take ownership of your domain outside of a Workplaces Subscription in the same way you can with Apple's ABM tool.
At the same time Google requires you to consolidate all of your company assets into one basket. You can't have different developer consoles so an employee or contractor working on Project X might have access to aspects of Project Y because the console permissions aren't granular enough. So there's no plausible deniability for Project Y when a Bad Actor working on Project X is identified.
You can't even insulate projects on Google's tools as there is a 1:1 relationship between their Play Console, Cloud Console, and a singular Cloud Project. So again absolutely no plausible deniability.
What you end up with is a situation where if a user does something Google doesn't like, Google decides how large of a net to cast over that user's network graph when bringing down the ban hammer.