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."
It's a little late to do a Film at 11 joke so... (Score:4, Funny)
Online service backtracks after privacy overshare. We'll monitor this story overnight and have a full report to you on the Really Early Local News. We start before normal people wake up.
Google is PURE Evil (Score:2)
Get over it.
"Don't Be Evil" - great cover, guys. Tell it to your foot soldiers, and make it a rallying mantra. Choosing this motto is what I'd call a tell. It betrays the underlying preoccupation.
Brin is a self-declared "trans-humanist". That's someone who has deep sympathies with population reduction, eugenics and other neo-Malthusian 'visions' for the evolutionary good of humankind. I hate to think of the twisted values that transpose their "good" and "evil" assignments for someone with those aspirati
Facebook is the true evil (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah - facebook is Evil's greased on-ramp. Google is the roundabout with no exit.
Re: (Score:2)
Brin is a self-declared "trans-humanist". That's someone who has deep sympathies with population reduction, eugenics and other neo-Malthusian 'visions' for the evolutionary good of humankind. I hate to think of the twisted values that transpose their "good" and "evil" assignments for someone with those aspirations.
Wikipedia:
Transhumanism [wikipedia.org] is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities. [emphasis mine]
Sounds more like The Borg sans creepy-hive-mind-weirdness than population control to me.
Transparent is no lie (Score:3, Insightful)
Transparent, as in not visible. Or at least buried deep in license agreements no one reads.
Re: (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 p
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You are mistaken, advertising is their core business. Search, email, maps, mobile operating systems, these are just hooks to lure in the product (users) to sell to the advertisers. Protecting your privacy is contrary to their entire business model, which is to sell targeted advertising based on collected data. They will change some wording around to placate loud complaints, but at their core they will continuously encroach into your personal information as best as they can.
service vs business (Score:3, Insightful)
You are mistaken, advertising is their core business.
I consider search to be their main service, but advertising to be their main business.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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.
Since I have no Google accounts I have no contract with Google and therefor those agreements are irrelevant to me [1]. Since I have no contract with Google any information they gather as a result of my viewing their Web pages is theirs to do with as they will. Therefor I see to it that they gather no non
Re: (Score:1)
Google gets a lot of shit from Slashdot (which it should sometimes -- Google is large enough that it needs to be watched carefully), but I want to reach out and say "thank you." I read the ToS for my services and the EULAs for my software, and Google's are generally as fair as I see anywhere. No, they're not perfect, but when graded on a scale with other companies in its class, Google gets an easy "A."
Just wanted to let a Googler know that.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
FTFY.
Remember, we should be going towards federated networks, not centralized!
Re: (Score:2)
They shot themselves in the foot with their earlier blunder, and until they backtrack and undo all the collateral damage of automatic follows I'm keeping it disabled.
Re:Facebook? Bueller? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Facebook? Bueller? (Score:5, Informative)
Right now I'd say I'm more worried about what the government or my ISP will do with my private information than I am by what Google will do with it.
Remember, kids: Any information that Google has about you is only a subpoena or warrant away from being in the hands of a third party. So don't forget to toss your cookies, wash your cache, and renew your IP.
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".
Re:Facebook? Bueller? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are bigger things to worry about than Facebook.
Privacy threats on the Internet, in order of risk (IMHO) are:
1) The computer user. Why are you using the same password for everything including your bank, and why is it "FluffyBottoms123"? I love your new MSIE toolbar though.
2) Malware on the PC.
3) Admins sniffing in/out LAN traffic (mostly office environments). Don't be surprised when you get fired for downloading porn, they are watching.
4) ISP Admins sniffing in/out WAN traffic (by design or by malicious admin with too much access).
5) Webmail hosting providers (Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo! mail, etc). Your primary email is key to everything you do online, and just because you deleted that message doesn't mean it really went away.
6) Overzealous social networking providers (such as Facebook). OMG! Like they know who your BFF is since middle school, and that your mood is "happy like a little butterfly". {barf}
7) The government. The signal to noise ratio is so high even with the "secret" fat pipes going into government closets, they may never notice you.
8) The admin of that one porn site you frequently regularly to look for freaky porn. (keyword searches and access logs are an interesting place to search). Stop searching for "underage midget bestiality" already, and have another look at #3.
On #3, as soon as I learned that one place was doing content filtering, with the ability to log, I set up a PPP over SSH tunnel on an obscure port, and put my default route over it. Suddenly I don't surf the net at all, but there is a lot of encrypted traffic on port 31337. I blame streaming radio. :) I have nothing to hide, but I may not want to advertise everything I do. Almost anything can be construed as inappropriate. It all depends on how it's presented. Don't believe me? Sit in on a few open court sessions sometime. "Bob was helping the little boy across the street" is what the defense says. The prosecution says "Bob caressed his hand, as he walked the boy towards what police described as a place where the defendant obviously took young children, softened them up with candy, and had his way with them". (btw, the "candy" could be a single empty snickers wrapper from that last road trip Bob took).
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have the right threats, but in tht wrong order.
Governments are a huge threat because they can get everything, and they have the resources to correlate the different databases (phone calls, web browsing, tax records, whatever) against each other.
Threats on the LAN do not bother me: if its private do it at home or buy a private netbook and a mobile connection.
1) and (largely) 2) are within my control, as are 5) and 6) (to an extent).
Re: (Score:2)
The government threat is highly over rated. It takes raising a pretty big red flag for them to start gathering information. You have to consider, if you're only looking at people in the US (citizens, visitors, and immigrants pending citizenship), that's an awful large pool to be seen in. If you or I got their attention, we'd have to be doing something way more significant than millions of others.
I already know I have files with at least a few government agencies. At one of
Re: (Score:1)
Imagine if you put all of that effort into a humanitarian job.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you sure I haven't had combat training?
Re: (Score:1)
*Sound of a gun with a silencer firing*
*Sound a slashdot poster falling to the floor*
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, this identity is burnt.
[lights passport on fire]
Oh look, he has a nice watch. Hmm, he does look a lot like me.
[tappity][tappity]
And he has $18,000 in the bank.
[digs around in the desk]
And a passport valid through 2014.
[tappity][tappity]
Oh and look he just booked a ticket to Munich.
[tappity][tappity]
"Dear boss, I need to take some personal
Re: (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
Re: (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: (Score:1)
Which is the most disturbing, for obvious reasons.
The reality is that corporations own America's legislature. Given Google's relative lack of evil compared to other corporations and corporate ownership of congress, wouldn't you rather see Google throw their money and resources at a congressmen in favor of net neutrality and other stuff we like? Lesser of two evils and all.
The silver lining of the American government's corporate ownership is that at least one will be on our
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
For my government, I am a nuisance that must be kept under control, watched and neutered so as to cause no problems for them. I am merely there to provide a vote (which is pretty much useless at this time since all parties are
High Bar (Score:5, Insightful)
Better than shitty can still be shitty
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Shitty isn't a measurement[1], it's an adjective. Are all fat people equally fat?
[1] If it is, what units is it in?
Re: (Score:2)
But to push the 'joke' further: No, not all people are equally fat - but 'more than fat' is by definition not 'fat'. It might be obese, or humongous, but it is not 'fat'. Obviously what constitutes fat is subjective but the point remains . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Given the horrid behavior of Facebook over the last month I'm feeling a lot better about Google. Maybe they're equally sleazy, but at least they don't whack you over the head with their sleaze.
That's because Google hasn't been caught. Oops. [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
did you read the reply?
1 and 3. Clicking "turn off buzz" hides the Buzz label, but doesn't delete the content you've posted, including comments. You'll need to delete those directly if you want to erase your footprint entirely. Check out the article linked below for more.
2. Actually, this isn't true. When you @reply someone, you can see their address because they were previously in your contacts. However, this address isn't exposed to others viewing the post.
4. Interesting. I have some theories on why that might be happening but will look into it.
5. Yep, that's a known issue, although it doesn't have any effect.
I tried it and cannot seen any emails on comments when I log out (I actually cannot see the comments either.)
http://www.google.com/profiles/101337690637283539403#buzz [google.com]
And I tried the account the next reply had but do not see any email addresses, just likes to their buzz profile when they are public
http://www.google.com/profiles/gallant.allison [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
caught? you think they put the bugs there intentionally? seems like a strange feature dont you think?
There's a difference between intentionally leaking data and discovering a bug and fixing it immediately. Google did work very quickly to patch the holes that were discovered in Buzz immediately after it first launched.
Facebook suffers from the same thing, but when people complain about facebook's lack of privacy features, they're generally referring to facebook's intentional moves to make their users' pri
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook suffers from the same thing, but when people complain about facebook's lack of privacy features, they're generally referring to facebook's intentional moves to make their users' private info public.
Sorry, but when one of your lead developers admits to infecting your users purposely on video, and you do NOTHING about it, you've lost all credibility. Fook Facebook AND Zynga games.
Re: (Score:2)
fair enough. you may have heard there is some upset between facebook and zynga right now - with zynga threatening to leave and start up their own website.
I personally look forward to a facebook without farmville!
Re: (Score:1)
More like that Churchill guy was a lot nicer than Adolf. Sure, Churchill was a dick, but he was in a different class.
This bothers me (Score:4, Insightful)
'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.'
Google doesn't collect peoples' information for the happy, innocent purpose of improving their experience. They collect peoples' information to make money. Why can't they be honest about that?
It doesn't even make it okay to do both.
Re:This bothers me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Cynical much? Obviously you don't have a loved one who makes you to sit through the ads cause they like 'em. Not everyone sees online ads as useless or disruptive.
Re: (Score:2)
You should try Italian TV (especially RAI 1). The adverts are the best bit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There fixed that for you.
My point being that sometimes the price of that improvement just isn't worth it in the long run. AdBlock Plus solves the problem quite nicely without divulging all of your personal information to Google.
Re: (Score:2)
um, you could always just not use google. I mean, their whole business revolves around advertising and if you dont like advertising then what do you expect them to do, work for free?
Shame on them for running a successful business. Here's a tip - every business needs advertising. If targeted advertising didn't exist, most of us wouldn't have jobs.
Not saying you have to look at them - that's your choice. But suggesting that google shouldn't advertise to us is just naive and ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that is not worth it to divulge personal information to Google, like emails, documents, etc. and especially not your identity so they can tie search results in with it.
Some search terms in their search engine resulting in targeted advertisement at that level is not as worrisome when you are obfuscating your IP address and identity anyways.
As far as advertisements on Google goes, I could care less. I have AdBlock plus on anyways and don't ever intend to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 anonymit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would choose to loose all the Internet rather than let any company have usage data on me, or any other citizen, in any country.
Whether or not that data is anonymous is a matter of semantics and transient circumstances at this point. The claim by a company that they will only provide the non-anonymous usage data to 3rd parties in an anonymous form is only valid if you truly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In an indirect way yes.
However, that was not what I was specifically referring to.
The Patriot Act allowed the use of NSL's (National Security Letters) to be used to force businesses to disclose confidential information regarding customers and to punish, criminally, any disclosure that the NSL even existed.
The NSL's themselves effectively bypassed Constitutional protections, and Judicial protections, regarding the ab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In a twisted way, seeing relevant ads is an improvement of the user experience. I don't wanna see ads for online pharmacies selling Viagra, and getting relevant ads is an improvement.
You're more of a penis pump kinda guy?
Re:This bothers me (Score:4, Insightful)
Google doesn't collect peoples' information for the happy, innocent purpose of improving their experience. They collect peoples' information to make money. Why can't they be honest about that?
I can't disagree with your second sentence, but I see no reason to believe the first. Why would you think that they don't do both, and why isn't it ok to make money simultaneously with improving user's experiences?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Or... *gasp*! Make money BY improving user experience so that their product is BETTER than competitors', driving users to them and therefore making more money?!
Re: (Score:2)
-- People are clueless.
-> People do not know what they want or need.
-> Someone needs to give them what they want or need.
-> Enter Google.
Or in short, delivering targeted ads is the method of how they improve people's experience.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are being honest about it. The "why we collect it" part of their quote is the part about them making money, I don't recall them ever pretending not to have more money then god. Improving the users experience is a big part of that however, since they don't make money if the users stop using.
Re: (Score:2)
You're both spinning it in opposite directions, which is easy to do because you're both right.
Google is trying to make money. I don't think they will ever claim otherwise. That said, if the things they do, the things they give away (in exchange for your data), the ways that data gives them an edge in their core functionalities doesn't improve the users' experience, the users are going to slowly bleed off to competitors. And obviously that's bad for the cash flow.
Seeing relevant ads is still far bette
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, they have to stay afloat somehow. I'd rather have it be targeted advertising than outright selling my info or spamming me. That makes them better than 95% of the advertising networks on the internet.
Using Google's services improves the end user experience, and Google can only provide those services if they make money.
Re: (Score:1)
Google doesn't collect peoples' information for the happy, innocent purpose of improving their experience. They collect peoples' information to make money.
Why am I not surprised. (Score:3, Funny)
[Jane Horvath and Peter Fleischer, global privacy counsels for Google] pledged to ensure "that privacy is designed into our products at every stage of the development cycle"
They're just pledging to do this now?
better solutions? (Score:5, Insightful)
it's easy to say 'google doesnt value privacy' . however i have yet to see someone make a post in any of these stories about an alternative search engine that
- gives just as good of results as google
- has a history of protecting privacy (google resisted a court order from the government as much as they could. other search engines happily complied)
the deal with search engines is simple. if you want a good working search engine that supports MILLIONS of users you are either going to have to pay or the search provider will need to use advertising. also said search provider is going to need to mine search results to give better results and when the government brings a patriot act court order , any business is going to comply.
do you think bing, yahoo and altavista would tell the US government "we'll take jail over handing you these records"? atleast google's owners tell you if you don't want your searches for something recorded, dont do them online in a non-anonymous way because it recorded. do you see another search provider doing that?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Then...
1) Don't login while searching.
2) Clear your flash cookies.
3) If you logged in while searching, regularly clear your search history from the Google control panel. It will still be retained for several months, but probably won't be actively used to serve you anything. Just passively used for larger scale statistics.
Note: You will still be tracked. For more info, read on: http://www.ghostery.com/ [ghostery.com]
P.S. I respect Google for being so truthful about how things are.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But beyond that google or any other search Provider, has no business building up some kinda advertising profile of my wed history.
I answered your primary complaint.
As I already said, they will still be tracking you - they just won't use it to customize search results, and they won't have an account to associate with their tracking data and statistics.
so google isn't this do no evil company,there just getting there slower then everyone else.
I agree. But unlike many companies, they haven't stopped innovating. If you look at the other giants in the industry, they have to rely on attacking their competitors. Google makes the occasional questionable move, but they still primarily innovate to survive. That's good.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
- gives just as good of results as google
- has a history of protecting privacy (google resisted a court order from the government as much as they could. other search engines happily complied)
http://ixquick.com/ [ixquick.com]
I've been using them for years, and it's continually improved. I replaced the default search engine in Firefox with Ixquick HTTPS search. My searches are sent via POST and travel over HTTPS. My IP is *never* recorded.
The results that Ixquick gives me are very good. Occassionally, I'll use something different like Yahoo, but that is very infrequent. They also offer a proxy service, though I haven't used it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome timing, since Scroogle [slashdot.org] died yesterday. =\
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
http://www.yauba.com/ [yauba.com]
https://www.ixquick.com/ [ixquick.com]
http://www.cuil.com/ [cuil.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There already exist a better solution. (Score:1)
"gives just as good of results as google"
That's easy, Google from some years ago. Back then Google didnt
have as many other services that created detailed maps of people's lives.
I like privacy, but i'm willing to trade a minor part of it for an ok web-search.
What i never accept is to give up anything more then that.
Nowadays Google isnt even asking our permission before silently mapping
our existance in great detail.
And Google wants more. Seems they want to know Everything about
Everyone.
I think no one should h
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://duckduckgo.com/privacy.html [duckduckgo.com]
They don't keep search logs. I am not connected in any way other than occasionally using it.
Thinking of just saying "FY, FB" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You need to realize when using Buzz that most stuff you post is public. You can change the setting to "private" very easily inside the post (and it remembers the setting for next time), but your public profile is ... public. That makes it a little more like Twitter than like Facebook.
Check your profile page and decide if you're comfortable with that.
Privacy Nuts (Score:2, Troll)
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.
What they never come close to confronting is the f
Re:Privacy Nuts (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a MUCH better logical situation. It's still bullshit, but that didn't stop you, so why should it stop me?
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
Ya know,google shouldn't be patting themselves on (Score:1)
ORLY? (Score:3, Insightful)
'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.'
Sooooo, the little tracking bugs from Double Click and Google Analytics? You're being transparent about all that data, eh? You have a nice place where I can see everything you have recorded on your hard drives about my browsing history? How about a page telling me all the sites your tracking bugs are on, and the number of unique pages and users they track? A clear, concise description of the algorithms you use to personalize ads, including the row and column definitions for the matrix(ces)?
Tell me again how serious you are about transparency. Really, I'm fascinated -- do go on.
Re:ORLY? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah. It's too bad they don't have easy to follow instructions [google.com] on how to disable that.
The phrase "disable tracking from google" gave me the referenced link as first result.
I tried a bing search and not until the 5th result did I even get an official msn link (and that link seems to have nothing to do with my query.) The other official microsoft link was for a pdf file. No other results on that page nor the next (it defaults to 10 results per page.)
Re: (Score:2)
Translucent is better than opaque. Transparent is something different.
Claiming they are being transparent when they are not putting all the information on the table is, simply, a lie. Whether they are the least bad actor, the best actor, or even if the net outcome to society is positive is not the question. They are not being transparent, but they are claiming they are for political purposes.
I don't like it when politicians lie. I don't like it when lobbyists lie. I don't like it when corporations lie. When
It's like dejavu all over again! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we have this discussion every single week?
Here is the first distinction that we have to make:
a) Services that publish private information
b) Services that do not publish private information
Facebook and other atrocities are clearly in the a) group. They publish your information for anyone to see and there is nothing you can do about it. On the other hand, you have no right to complain, since that is the bloody purpose of the service.
Google, on the other hand, is in group b). They do collect user information, but they process that information in an automated way, gather stats, and let you store, organize and share that information. They DO NOT publish that information or make it available to any other third party. Nobody except for a perl script and a SQL server is looking at your data. And you have no right to complain, since that is the purpose of the service.
So, you don't want your information published: Do not use services in a) group.
You don't want your information automatically analyzed and processed, do not use services in b) group.
It is truly that simple. I do not use any service in group a). I do use google, and many of its services. All the information is kept between google and me. You see, I want them to do what they do. I like the way they analyze my data and the way they allow me to manipulate it. You know what happens to the information I want no one to see? it is not published publicly. Do you know what happens to the info I don't want google's perl scripts to see? it doesn't get uploaded in the first place.
It's like going to a horror movie and complaining that you got scared. It was a fucking horror movie! what are you complaining about?
People upload all of their private info into some unknown "social network" and then complain about privacy. It's in the fucking name, what are you complaining about?
Can we really get over this?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's like dejavu all over again! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't expect - nor want - any company to refuse a lawfully issued warrant.
I do expect for them to wait for that warrant which only Google did.
Re:It's like dejavu all over again! (Score:4, Insightful)
Lawfully issued from which country?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Here is the first distinction that we have to make:
a) Services that publish private information
b) Services that do not publish private information
The problem is that there is little to stop companies from transitioning from group b) to group a).
I'm reasonably confident that Google won't actively screw me over right now. But ten years down the road? Who knows?
Frankly, the only reason I trust Google NOW is that they have an incentive to keep me happy. If at any point I get pissed off, I can pack up and move to Bing or some other competitor with a minimum of fuss.
However with Facebook, they have a locked-in market. Sure, you can quit and move
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, screw Karma, here is what I really think:
Anyone that uses social networks or publishes any kind of personal information on the web that they don't want to be public, or without understanding what will happened, IS A FUCKING RETARD. And deserves no privacy.
And, here we go: Facebook and other social network users are ATTENTION WHORES. Nothing more than that. Narcissist bitches.
Tweeter users are attention whores AND retards with the attention span of a 2 year old kid.
Fuck you all! Remember when the interne
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, you've missed the point entirely. This letter was (in part) in response to Google's botched launch of Buzz which is exactly "some unknown social network". The privacy commissioners wanted to know exactly how a company with as much talent as Google could launch a product with such glaring privacy concerns and wait for public outcry before fixing them. It would appear that Google have completely failed to answer that question.
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.
Privacy = Information. What does Google trade in? (Score:2)
Google as a company makes money by giving away information. In order to get that information, we selectively let them collect information on us. Our privacy has value to us, so we want to keep it private. But not trading information is against Google's very nature. They make money by disseminating information.
This is why Google can be so careless as they were with Buzz. You could see that lack of regard reflected in Jim Clark's (Google CIO) comments about Buzz. All that valuable private information won't ma
Great! (Score:1)
Whitewash (Score:2)
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,