I'm sorry- perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting that anyone who works for these companies MUST somehow be complicit in these encroachments by the government.
If that's not the case, I think you're cool on not eating your brussel sprouts.
After being informed nearly daily of how one's work assists another in their deeds, then continuing to accept salary, it is compliance and complicity.
Others have shown they do not need to comply, to various ends. Snowden[1], Klein[2], Manning[3], Barrett[4], Levison[5]. This is a terribly narrow range of those who refused and resisted in recent history. From admin to technician to analyst to activist to owner, you can indeed not become complicit with the US government or others after learning knowledge of malfeasance.
When violent revolution is around the corner, I will buy this argument. The deficiency in your position is that it assumes change cannot happen from within.
Additionally there are great things that these companies do in spite of government intervention. If these services were abandoned, peoples lives can be put at risk.
Your arguments only make sense if the country is on the verge of revolution. Given the ratings on TV, and the velocity of posts on /r/advice animals, I don't think were there yet.
You assume that I made that assumption, that is wrong.
My position is those attempting to cause change from within have while at work helped give inertia and acceptance to what they think they want to fight against while at home watching the evening news.
Nothing stops them from finding other venues of employment, many excuses are made as to how they want to fight from within. We end up with users on forums attempting to defend their profiting from the entire ordeal. Complicit.
Essentially I am saying working from within is only a good choice for those who find themselves already in that position, like Snowden. Otherwise more harm is done.
If that's not the case, I think you're cool on not eating your brussel sprouts.