If there was any doubt that Google is in the sack with the US government, this consistent funnel of execs from Google to the White House should quell it.
They've got to go somewhere for the talent pool and credentials, and that means tapping Google, Twitter, et al. It helps that Google and many Bay Area companies lean progressive and helped both Obama's campaign, as well as fixing ACA Web sites.
If the suggestion is this somehow proves some nefarious NSA connection because a few employees went to work for the government, that seems pretty fallacious to me.
In those cases too, you could say "well, how else would you rather they fill those spots?" And yes, it is likely the a Goldman exec would have lots of expertise in the financial sector, so it's a natural place to recruit from.
Still in both those cases, and with Google here, there are large potential conflicts of interest. People that complain about Goldman execs in Washington will also complain about this appointment, and there are valid reasons for such complaints.
There may be some instances when a conflict of interest comes up, but as others point out, that's virtually impossible to avoid for anyone with expertise. Many here might not object to an academic being appointed to the role who specializes in open source and advocating for the limitations of copyright, but of course there's a huge conflict of interest there, too.
The conflict of interest would be their tendency to see everything from the lens of their life's work, and of course to actively advocate for their values, which are already well formed in the relevant domain.
Barring financial conflict of interest (e.g. stock still owned from the previous job), it's just as much of a conflict of interest as someone previously at one of these related companies but no longer employed there.
Of course, one could argue that in many cases, Gmail is a better solution than Exchange or Outlook for the government workers, but Google as CTO will forever taint any wins.
I don't think the Goldman comparison works. In those cases, industry reps control the implementation of regulations or help draft rules or laws, and that is a much bigger conflict of interest.
If you can catch leaders on CSPAN from various companies testifying before Congrefs, it's pretty frightening to think they'd have no voice at all - things are so over-specialized that there's considerable time spent on just getting warmed up. During the brownouts of the electric grid, it was sorta uncomfortable watching people from the electric industry trying to phrase things carefully but completely for the committee. Considerable time was spent on them asking how frequently the instrumentation on the grid should be polled. It's all a bit like the comedy short "The Expert".
She has the tech expertise but worked as an executive. She worked at Google which automatically gives at least the perception that she is one of the top people in the field.