According to the text of the article, that's not true. The gag orders were to prevent the attorney from getting bad publicity. I suppose that they wrote "keep suspects in the dark" or the equivalent legalese in the motion, but the real reason appears to be otherwise.
After careful re-reading, I think you are correct. I didn't read closely enough. The key paragraph is attributed to Google's lawyer.
However, the whole "twitter didn't get a gag order" aspect does support the thesis that the Google gag order is to minimize criticism of the US lawyers.
Since the very same person (Jacob Appelbaum) appears to be the subject of both Twitter and Google search warrants, the "we don't want to alert TERRORISTS!" excuse for the gag order doesn't hold. Also, if it's a search warrant, and not a CALEA-type on-going surveillance warrant, why would a gag order be imposed? If Google has the data, they have to turn it over or face penalties, and I'm sure they have a policy to fork over any legally-demanded data. They may have a duty to their own consciences to contest the search warrants, but I'm sure that they hand over data.
I can think of one other motive for such a gag order, and that's to minimize the time that Appelbaum has to prepare a defense. That hardly seems fair, given that the USA is supposed to have a level playing field with ALL CITIZENS subject to the rule of law. I'd rather not think that the US Attorney, with all the legal and monetary resources of the federal government at hand, would stoop to cheap shots like that.
I think Gidari's conclusion, although an opinion, fits the facts as we know them. The Google gag order was sought to contain or minimize criticism. Assuming that seems to give the US Attorneys the benefit of the doubt, because otherwise I'd think they were trying to cheat, which they, as officers of the court have a moral duty to avoid.
