Google Defends Privacy Policies 114
adeelarshad82 writes "Google responded to a letter from 10 international privacy commissioners who criticized the company's approach to privacy, insisting that Google protects its customers and has moved quickly to make changes regarding Google Buzz. In a letter to the commissioners, global privacy counsels for Google stated, 'We are committed to being transparent with our users about the information that we collect when they use our products and services, why we collect it, and how we use it to improve their experience.' The April inquiry from the officials included privacy commissioners from Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, and the UK."
Facebook? Bueller? (Score:5, Interesting)
If anything it's Facebook's "We honestly don't give a shit what you think 'cause millions of others won't care what we do as long as they've got Farmville" attitude that annoys me more than the privacy issues.
Re:Facebook? Bueller? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Transparent is no lie (Score:3, Interesting)
Transparent, as in not visible. Or at least buried deep in license agreements no one reads.
Those who care, will read it. And they'll make a big fuss about it, to which hopefully Google will respond some day...
Google needs your data, just like how you need Google. Search is their core business, after all. What we need to make sure is that those TOS and agreements are not just some legal stuff to make the whiners go away, and it's in their enlightened self-interest to make sure we can verify it. Google is not Microsoft: it won't cost you days of work and months of learning to move away from their products if they piss you off, and they know it.
That said, always keep in mind that for a company like Google, you are not the customer. You are the product.
Re:Privacy Nuts (Score:5, Interesting)
The privacy nuts are rather like the abortion nuts. Although there are many views only one side pushes forward. Just as we never see gangs of protesters marching for abortion but only against abortion we see only the privacy freaks protesting the supposed evils of free information. Some people seem to only feel safe if they are living totally obscured from the view of all others.
Uh, that's a poor comparison. Most anti-choice (I refuse to label them pro-life, as someone can be pro-life and pro-choice without contradicting themselves) protesters are fighting to outlaw abortion, while "privacy freaks" typically are more concerned with their own privacy (and bitching about the lack thereof). I don't have a Facebook account with any real information, and I try to educate people about privacy, but I'm hardly campaigning to outlaw status updates. I think people should have the right to tell the world when they are taking a shower and what they thought about the Shawshank Redemption. I just think that they should be clearly informed of what is being done with their data and any transfer of the data to a third party should be an opt-in process.
STATUS UPDATES ARE MURDER
Re:Facebook? Bueller? (Score:3, Interesting)
Precisely. Let's remember that it was Google who told the US government to take them to court before they'd hand over search query data. I'm not saying Google is perfect. But as the post above notes, Google collect data for the sole purpose of providing targeting data to their customers - advertisers. Worst-case scenario is that some advertisers have slightly more information on your browsing habits. This is far from the end of the world.
But you are spot on when you worry about the government getting their hands on this information. I can see problems for people discussing: ... which are all quite valid topics, which ever side of the so-called 'great divide' you come down on.
- euthanasia
- recreational drugs, including medical use, drug law reform, harm minimisation programs, etc
- political activism
- criticism of government
- criticism of big business
- workers' rights
Re:better solutions? (Score:1, Interesting)
http://www.yauba.com/ [yauba.com]
https://www.ixquick.com/ [ixquick.com]
http://www.cuil.com/ [cuil.com]
Re:better solutions? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Facebook? Bueller? (Score:3, Interesting)
Governments are blocking that kind of discussion. The web sites banned in Australia include a euthanasia site and a pro-life site.
Re:Facebook? Bueller? (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine if the warrants come in and Google said: "Sorry can't help, we've taken 100% effective measures to protect user privacy".
Dear Google. (Score:1, Interesting)
The presence of ads everywhere on your applications does not 'improve my experience'.
You are a public company whose only reason for existence to to make money for your CEOs and if you distribute dividends, your shareholders.
the end of Privacy by Obscurity (Score:1, Interesting)
I first got this lesson sometime in the late '90s after Google acquired DejaNews, and found that typing my name in the search bar would summon up all my forgotten posts on Usenet (which I had thought had a shelf life of weeks or months, given the scarcity of hard disk space at the time). That experience was enough to turn me into an AC ever since.
Of course Google has since grown exponentially, acquiring technologies left and right, and now can show pictures of most every housefront in the civilized world, sometimes including their occupants in unflattering poses. They argue that this is "public space". Yes, but in the old days (pre-Google) nobody would think of collecting this data (well except for the government spy agencies), and indexing them for all to see (which leaves out the spy agencies). But it's probably a great tool for burglars, private detectives, stalkers, etc.
It used to be that only celebrities and some politicians lived their lives in a fishbowl for the entire world to see. By collecting and indexing all public space, Google is eliminating the netherland between public and private, so we all get to live in public like celebrities... without the benefits of same.
Re:This bothers me (Score:3, Interesting)
.... and none of it is worth losing your privacy or anonymity over it. None of it.
The risks associated with data mining are not as benign as a few corporations forcing relevant ads in front of your face all day. It's a little bit more involved and complex than that. I could go tin-foil-hat on you all day long, but let's just leave it at it's too dangerous to have that much personal information in public. The public loses the best protection it ever had, could had, and will have, its privacy and anonymity.