Slashdot Mirror
Google Changes Privacy Policy
jemecki writes "Yahoo reports that Google has updated their privacy policy on user data collection. The new policy now explicitly states that 'Google may use personal information to display customized content and advertising, develop new services and ensure that its network continues to function.' It also adds that employees who violate the policy will be fired and prosecuted. They have also added a Cliffs Notes version of their privacy policy for those who don't want to RTFPP."
If you'll read the fine privacy policy, you'll get a hint.
I don't leave my house without my tinfoiled hat firmly in place, but I could care less about privacy policies. Especially those that require my signature. I will probably stop signing those, but I haven't felt like getting into it with the person who cannot see past the point that there is no point in agreeing or signing a "policy" that clearly says "I can change the rules at any time without notifying you".
Signing something like that is ignorant in my opinion because signing something implies agreement, and agreeing to an openended and potentially radically different terms doesn't seem much like an agreement to me.
I think that all of us should get together with a lawyer and create our own privacy statement and ask others to sign it, and not the other way around.
Read The Fucking Privacy Policy
Bradley Holt
They have a version of their privacy policy written in plain english?
Isn't that against federal law or something?
Read The Full Privacy Policy
R)ead T)he F)!#*ing (insert others things here)
RTFM!
What if Google decided to abandon the concept of privacy altogether? The stock price would double, right? With that much information on their hands, it must be darn tempting.
everything about us is on google anyway now they can basicly just show more ads to us, I do like the cliff notes
Linux is like living in a teepee. No Windows, no Gates, Apache in house.
>
> If you'll read the fine privacy policy, you'll get a hint.
I read the fucking privacy policy, and it still didn't define RTFPP. WTF?
But having said that, what personal information have you actually sent to Google (searching habits excluded)?
Um, does all of my Gmail count?
I think Google is simply making their privacy policy a bit more clear. It has been known for years that, at the very least, they log the IP address and search string for every request that hits their servers.
It might be fun to have a "what has this IP adress searched for?" feature to sift thru the google logs. Then again, it might uncover some scary stuff.
Isn't this basically what they were doing anyway? Using gathered data to better target ads? I mean they're walking the fine line now between good and evil. But I prefer honesty and that's what they're giving us in the terms. Now let's sit and watch to see if they "lose" our data like other notable companies have in the past.
I don't get it.
When I subscribed to the Wall Street Journal and became inundated with investment-related spam almost immediately. I suppose I should learn to RTFPP.
Why is this a YRO article? When Yahoo or MSN changes their privacy policy, is it covered in Slashdot?
Google changes their privacy policy to reflect things that YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW.
They track your usage and produce advertisements based on your usage. Duh. That's their whole business model people-- Google is an Advertising business first, a search engine second.
Do you really think Google needs 5000 computers to serve a website? NO--- a signifigant number of those computers are for data crunching-- what are people viewing now, what advertisements should we show them? It's called "predictive marketing", it's a more advanced version of those stupid "Direct Marketing" advertisements you get in the mail.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
...but there's no such thing as a free lunch. This was to be expected, and I'm sure that sooner or later, Google will push the limits of privacy as other companies have. Their method, however, may be so slothfully and minutely incremental that few will notice.
what personal information have you actually sent to Google (searching habits excluded)?
They can read your emails. I don't know about you but that's pretty personal stuff to me.
I don't think it'd be a bad idea for some of these 'open user-friendly, "we're not going to use your information for anything bad"' companies/organisations to blog their changes openly, to both reassure their users that any changes arn't bad and to ensure everyone understand exactly what's happening.
;P
But maybe I'm just an idealist
I think therefore I am... a Linux geek.
"The new policy now explicitly states that 'Google may use personal information to display customized content and advertising, develop new services and ensure that its network continues to function.'"
Umm, so if Google is losing money hand-over-foot, it can use 'private' information in any way it chooses if necessary to ensure that its network continues to function? I know, nitpicking and alarmist, but that clause is very vague.
"It also adds that employees who violate the policy will be fired and prosecuted."
So, any employees who does not use my personal information will get fired and prosecuted?
Sheesh! Talk about a demanding workplace!
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
No kidding. They will use information collected about users to target advertising. That is the price you pay to use thier free email service, search service, desktop, etc. As long as they keep that private infomration within google, then fine. Looks like I will be RTFPP tonight.
I've always found that profanity is the refuge of the inarticulate motherfucker.
"I feel this is a breach of our rights"
What rights are you referring to? This is a SERVICE. You are free to CHOOSE not to use the service. Why do "feel" your rights are being violated by a company that you can choose not to give your business to?
"They have also added a Cliffs Notes version of their privacy policy for those who don't want to RTFPP."
CliffsNotes is a registered trademark of John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Please refer to the abbreviated version as an "Executive Summary" or just a "Summary."
**This message brought to you by the "Congresspeople for Unending Corporate Profits" committee.**
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I feel this is a breach of our rights.
Taking away your gun is a breach of your rights. Incarcerating you for standing on a soapbox shouting 'Bush is a Dirty Bunny Tickler' is a breach of your rights. A non-governmental entity collecting information you provide while surfing along on this Internet-thingy, that's no breach of your rights. Don't use Google. Don't surf the Internet-thingy. Use cash.
If the government forces you to use Google, or Google develops a monopoly on whatever the hell it does in an unfair manner, then let's have this conversation again. But now, today? Ain't no rights-breachin' goin' on here.
Now, the fact that Google seems to edge ever closer to The Dark Side (at least in the eyes of its Slashdot fanboy faithful) is certainly a daily source of amusement to me, but as for actual rights breaching? Wow. I'm not even sure they, as a corporate and not a governmental entity, are even capable of doing that.
That's it, I'm uninstalling my Google toolbar in Firefox and deleting the never-ending cookie. Guess I'll start using the dewey decimal system on the internet to look anything up. The internet is indexed properly correct?
Is anyone else getting asked to accept a cookie originating from the site of the top result of a Google search before ever clicking on it?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
First, Google Earth. Next, your online privacy! Who knows if they'll be spying on your house to see what kind of products you might want to buy!
*puts on tinfoil hat (purchased, btw, via google AdSense)*
In case you had a complaint and you didnt want to read the full thing...
Enforcement
Google regularly reviews its compliance with this Policy. Please feel free to direct any questions or concerns regarding this Policy or Google's treatment of personal information by contacting us through this web site or by writing to us at Privacy Matters, c/o Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California, 94043, USA. When we receive formal written complaints at this address, it is Google's policy to contact the complaining user regarding his or her concerns. We will cooperate with the appropriate regulatory authorities, including local data protection authorities, to resolve any complaints regarding the transfer of personal data that cannot be resolved between Google and an individual.
Now, back to reality....
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
...then don't use their service! I personally don't like how anyone uses cookies (not just Google) so I disable cookies for all but the sites where they are absolutely required. The fact that Google collects IP addresses and browsing times is well within their rights. Its the same as when you go to a coffee shop every day and eventually the employees there come to recognize you and maybe offer a special they think you may like. (Granted, this kind of behavior is rare, but its just an example).
Just because Google can do this on an unprecedented scale doesn't mean its wrong.
"customized content".. and also their definition of "personal information"
Are my emails "personal information" (on gmail) ?
Is customized content basically the same as google adsense ads or whatever the thingies are called?
Where else would Google receiver personal information? Companies they've overtaken?
I just don't remember giving Google much more then my traffic over the years..
~jennifer.k~
More likely, if you use google's system to DDOS itself and have a session variable set at the time, pointing to your gmail account, they'll hand that over to law enforcement in your jurisdiction .
Or even more likely, they'll notice that they have a lot of users in slovakia (for example) and install more servers there.
Google, and yes, Yahoo and MSN, need to answer at least three crucial questions:
1) Google admits that your search terms are saved along with your unique cookie ID and your IP address, and a time/date stamp. However, they spin this by suggesting that it's merely part of the normal logging process. The question is this: To what extent does Google parse out and database this information for future reference and easy access?
2) Does Google have any data retention policies for various types of data, or do they keep it all forever?
3) On a country-by-country basis, how many requests does Google get from government officials for user information? We don't need names, but we need numbers, so that we can judge the comparative risks of using Google or other search engines for each country. China, for example, is riskier than the U.S., but even in the U.S. it's illegal for Google to disclose a request if it's a national security matter. However, they could reveal statistics if they wanted to.
I know I have searched for things that if connected could imply part of my (and my girlfriend's) medical history.
What!? How dare you!? How bold of you to criticize anything Google on Slashdot!
Anyway, fellow posters have already given you what you deserve.
'Bush is a Dirty Bunny Tickler'
You might want to watch your mouth there, this is post Patriot Act America
You should atleast hire an attorney to represent you, I can think of one that is going to need work soon.
That seems to never get addressed.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
As I understand, a Contract (I think Contract contains Agreement) is a statement of understanding, and where there is no understanding, the contract is no good. (To put this point home to a Corporation would be no fun, however.)
With such a summary, the signer (Victim) could argue that the summary is the truer contract, wherever that takes him.
Start Menu-Shut Down: Flip a coin. If heads, Windows 98 shuts down properly.
I think people have less of a concern on individual products, but the cross ties make it concerning to some people. i.e. Being able to easily identify who you are from google mail, than cross reference that with all the websites you goto, combine with froogle, google desktop and maps tends to cause people to pause for a second. Separate individual databases aren't that big of a privacy concern, sharing databases allowing one to correlate wide disparate information sources easily can have a large privacy concern (but unfortunately only those types give the most useful, targeted, pertinent information that people really are wanting).
If one wanted to get out the tin-foil hat. Life insurance company wants to check on a person to see their health history. Using the data that google currently has, they could identify you has a probable high-risk by:
Correlate you to google mail (faily easy task)
In google mail, monitor for any health related email messages (i.e. dad died of heart failure at 35)
From gmail match your IP to a person doing searches for heart disease
Using the IP identify that you recently mapped driving directions to a heart specialist
Also using your IP froogle match any product searches/purchases related to health risk
That's the tin-foil usage there, if everybody is scared of allowing the government to have databases connected (for the above reasons), than we should be as scared or even more so that a private organization has this capabilities but has no freedom of information act requirements to be held to (or other such public controls)
Some people act like internet sites are the only people collecting personal data. Did you ever use a "Club Card"? Heck, credit card companies have been giving away your personal information for decades based on your spending habits. We shouldn't pick on targeted internet ads like it's a new problem, its just a whole lot cheaper than mass mailing samples of toilet paper to a million people - this way than can target only those that wipe.
--Insert profound quote here.
I'm sure that was supposed to be funny. Since it wasn't, I'll assume you're just another random troll and point out that the USA Patriot act does not affect Slashdotters who call Bush a dirty bunny tickler.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
You say this:
I feel this is a breach of our rights.
And then say:
But having said that, what personal information have you actually sent to Google (searching habits excluded)?
If you don't know what they are collecting, and are asking instead of reading the Policy, how can you say this is a breach of your rights?
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
When applying for a job, will google HR peruse my gmail to make sure I'm the right candidate.
Does this new privacy policy make CustomizeGoogle's "Anonymize the Google cookie UID" setting illegal?
Follow this article to find out that Google knows:
beware!! first off, i would never use anyones "tool bar" what a waste, the time it takes you to click the tool bar you could have went to the site anyways and preformed most of the same functions ( i cant think of time where i was like darn, i wish i had that "insert greedy company name here" tool bar. You dont need it, so dont use it, next up, google is going to collect everything they can about you , they probably have the largest database around on what you search for, when, etc, GMAIL, is another thing, after 180 days the property "sort of" becomes googles because it is stored on their server. They can scan through it at will i am sure
Is Google going to become "EVIL"? Could the Media darling status eventually fade away, could the honeymoon pass, and could their stock be held to the same standards as other business (e.g. the dot-bomb model failed for a reason).... What will happen next?
Oh boy I can't wait to see. By the way, has anyone read the Gator privacy policy lately? Did Google copy a few lines?
Go ahead, flame me. I'm not trying to troll; it's just my warped sense of humor i guess.
What are the chances of Microsoft ever doing this for their EULAS?
On a more serious note, I think I would base my decision on which company I purchase software from depending on if they included outlines or "Cliff Note" versions of their legal mumbo jumbo. I hate companies like Microsoft who try to squeeze as much control into a license agreement while trying to make sure the customer is unaware of it. Of course, in Microsoft's case, they make sure that it'll be the next millennium before you finish reading it!!!
Now get back to work...bitches
...signing a "policy" that clearly says "I can change the rules at any time without notifying you".
This is written, in one form or another, in most employment agreements as well. Basically saying 'We can do whatever we want, when we want, no questions asked.'
But if you don't sign, you don't get to join/play/use/work.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I work for a life insurance company. (No, I won't name it, and I'm not speaking on behalf of them in any way.) If we tried anything of the sort, we'd get sued into oblivion. Insurers have to be very careful about making sure that every bit of information we have on file has been personally authorized by you. Any information that would reveal your health history and wasn't personally authorized by you would be covered under the Health Insurance Privacy and Accountability Act (HIPAA). HIPAA violations are serious business and doing something like you described would undoubtedly lead to a major lawsuit.
That information isn't public. Google would be idiotic to share it. If they did, I and a whole lot of other people would stop using Google's services for good.
"Don't be evil" isn't a buzzword for Google, it's a matter of survival - as it should be.
Does this mean they've redefined "evil" too?
on the other hand, having Mom and Dad find out that you've been surfing for pr0n on your shared cable-internet connection is gonna suck big time, when the Google search page comes up for them with "would you like to see 'Nerdy Hoes' again, Professor Falken?"...
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
They will not use your personal information except to "ensure that its network continues to function"
Haha, what they mean is that if one day they're low on cash, they need some new servers to handle a spike in traffic . . . they're guarenteeing they'll take your personal data and do whatever's necessary to get the money to keep the place running.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
what info can they possibly get by just using google search? i dont have gmail or an account on google groups or any of their other services. just searching thats it..i have cookies blocked anyway so maybe it doesnt matter. anyway what else besides my IP address could they possibly get?
So in essence: google are still promising not to sell your details; they've clarified their policy against employees selling it on (they're anti-) and they've made the document easier to read. On the minus side, they've failed to provide information that Yahoo! don't provide either. Which seems to be about as evil as Google gets.
Of course, Yahoo does have a vested interest here. Maybe we should take this with a pinch of salt?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
If your point is that only the government is able to breach your rights (as your examples seems to indicate) it's a bizarre claim. If I hit you over the head and take your wallet I've breached your rights, if I short-change you at the 7-11, I've breached your rights. While governments do abuse their authority regularly, that authority is legitimately used in ensuring your rights. Against corporate entities, for example.
How, exactly? Where in the US (or any other) constitution is your "right" to use a privately owned service for free specified?
If you don't like the privacy policy, don't use Google services.
I really don't see the problem with businesses doing this type of thing.
If you run a R/L business you keep in mind what certain customers like. Its a bsic principle of sales. Cookies, and IP-logging is just the online way of doing this.
I hope they don't read the spambox. I don't need any more "Refiance your C1AlI5 payments" emails.
Really, email has never been secure and you should not be shocked that someone could view or search it. If you do have personal stuff you'd rather not be seen, encrypt it or find some other method.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
If you want to not use Google services to keep your tinfoil hat pinned tightly to your head, feel free.
I am not a Google fanboi, but I am pretty positive that most any internet related use is going to identify you and pin some type of information to you.
Thats just how it is.
Whether they know your name, address, search history, email content (using online email acct), I am pretty sure that all of this at some point so going to be available to SOMEONE with continued use on the internet.
Its scary, but I don't see a way around it. I make a pretty good attempt at disguising my usage at home, but when i have an IP address and I go out on to any web site...BAM...right there I have something that can be linked back to me.
I could go to Bob's CRAZY Search engine and hope that he knows what he is doing, and go to the 12 pages that he has indexed, or I can use Google, which has been upfront with their practices about what they'll use the information for. Someone offered a Google Search > Google News > Google Email traingulation method to try and learn more about you....well, I got news for ya, all of that info can be gained from your ISP, without all the smoke and mirrors, if there are people are so inclinded to get it.
Joe 6-Pack can't get that information from your ISP, but he can't get it from Google either, and anyone who is serious enough to want to go through the trouble of tracking you that hard, Google isn't going to be their main tool in getting to your ass.
Soooo... Fire employees who aren't doing everything with the data?
----------
Any problem can be made unsolvable if there are enough meetings made to discuss it.
bent over about google that they actually have someone check the privacy policy each day for something new? Cmon yahoo, we all know google is greater than you, why dont you go pick on a company thats not your own size, I mean, one that only makes $750k a year compared to your $2.4B... Oh, wait, you already are. Assholes.
(in reference to the yahoo vs xfire case)
I'd say that making the cookie anonymous doesn't matter if they are logging your IP address. If they were separate databases it would be very difficult to correlate, but because of the combined databases they can just use your IP and get the same result.
So can any other email host, as someone else said google (and other such large hosts) are probably much less likely to do so than say some fly-by-night webhost.
Just like with the government, it's the concern of the rogue employee, or the comapny that needs to make their quarterly numbers. They do have access to all that information, and if they wanted to; they could use it. This would be similar to the bank identity theft debacle that happened in India. And remember I was talking "tin-foil-hat" line of thought.
I'm not completely versed on it, but I'm not sure that this falls under hippa. As we aren't really talking about information sharing with health agencies but the traces you've left along the way (publically and privately), and combining those little insignificant individual bits into a much larger thing.
If you RTFA (did you?) you notice that there is a big "Associated Press" logo and several other notes that it is an AP article.
Why is Google all of the sudden exempt from all the privacy criticisms that everyone else gets mad about?
Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
It amazes me how many people are falling for this "Only the government can violate your rights" line. If we allow this to become an accepted idea, the government will just privatize all interaction with the population, and then can do anything they want to anyone they want because "Only the government can violate your rights", and the strip searches, property seizures, and imprisonments will be done by "private" companies.
Agreed. I woulda put that as funny.
Yahoo reports that Google
Am I the only one that sees a problem with this line?
... all those pr0n messages that send to gmail (because I obviously never google up any pr0n sites) ..
i don't even want to begin to wonder what searches would show up
when my little sister uses the computer
i sent this to google's 'contact us' link on its new privacy policy page :
... after our heads are chopped!
thought others might be interested:
**** start of email to google:
With regard to your new 'Privacy Policy' of Oct, 2005, and specificlly regarding this paragraph:
"If Google becomes involved in a merger, acquisition, or any form of sale of some or all of its assets, we will provide notice before personal information is transferred and becomes subject to a different privacy policy."
We must take great excption! Your words merely imply that you will "notify" us , not that you will allow any 'opt-out' . You seem to have further enshrined what is a massive threat to the privacy of all citizens.
Try again, google.
*** end of email to google
Please observe that our data is daily being added as a 'marketable asset' of google, vastly increasing its value in any future acquisition/merger/sale of the company!. Nowhere in the Privacy Policy does it say that we can opt-out of having our info given to any new owner! yes , we'd be 'informed'
I find this totally intolerable.
"There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
As far as I'm concerned anyone that is that upset by this has something to hide.
actually, corporate entities are quite capable of violating peoples rights, just like many other entities. have you ever had factories dump toxic waste upstream from your home? have you ever been wrongfully detained by private security? been monitored by some private firm (..that you know about)? been sold a dangerously faulty product? been sold a completely fraudulently advertised product? had your personal contact information sold to a dozen telemarketing companies that you do not want business with, without your knowledge? had your finances stolen by some criminal executive?
if not, can you IMAGINE any of these things POSSIBLY happening?
are you going to justify it by saying "Well, you made the CHOICE to be at the wrong place, at the wrong time" ?
what you said is just ideology, nothing more. an entity's status as "corporate" or "government" doesn't affect its ability to violate peoples humans rights.
"A non-governmental entity collecting information you provide while surfing along on this Internet-thingy, that's no breach of your rights."
so, if a "governmental" search engine were to collect information that YOU provide while you're surfing the net, for the exact same stated purpose, it's a breach of your rights? but not when a corporation does the exact same thing?
INFORMED CONSENT should be the name of the game, but isn't. so-called corporations don't have any respect for your autonomy or privacy, though. in case you haven't noticed.
the fact is, if they don't have a good transparent opt-out system, available for people who wish to continue using google, then they're just a thug. maybe a thug with a "good business sense", but a thug all the same. which is why somebody might say "i feel that this is a breach of rights." it will take more than ideology to address those concerns.
anyway, it's nice to know that google can use my personal information to "ensure that its network continues to function." yeah, right.
Well, maybe there will be a Dirty Bunny Tickler Act soon. You better consult a good lawyer.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Google's desktop search has always sent search results back to google for "formatting" before being displayed, unlike the Microsoft search tool which is 100% local.
:p
Who's evil now?
Why, Google of course!!
Here's a rule of thumb that slashdotters should learn. The evilness of an entity is proportional to the entity's self-declarations of non-evilness.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
I dont want Google to do the following kind of things using my information: ;)
1.) Use my orkut profile to advise me on jobs, books, or on dating women.
2.) Use my gmail messages to track my transactions and contacts
and so on..
I dont mind if they use my search behavior/preferences that I set to improve rankings - something like what A9 does. but nothing more..
Many countries have expressed their concern over Google earth showing their secret defence areas and important projects.
They should give more respect to privacy..
Why these never ending non stories about Googles evilness? Wake me up when theyve done something bad. I frankly dont see anything evil about them. Maybe i shouldnt compare them to any other company on the planet and do as some do, compare them to Mother Theresa?
HTTP/1.1 400
So, do we think they are evil now? No? They are still OK? Oh, OK. 'Hey Bob, /. said google is OK still...no, no, you can put away the torches and pitch forks, we don't need them yet.'
...
Obviously, Google sold its soul.
Anybody come up with a neutral search engine yet?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Here's something for you to try:
Set you browser to ask for you approval before accepting cookies, now delete cookies that go with any major copanies you've visited recently.
Go to google and search for a company name.
Ex: Type in "microsoft"
What happens when the results come up?
You're prompted to accept a cookie from microsoft.com.
Now, I never even clicked the first link (which is microsoft's homepage).
Why is it that a company is now allowed to add cookies to my machine (and potentially track my web browsing) simply because I looked them up on google?
This is company name specific. I tried "k-mart" and it didn't work. But "kmart" did trigger a request to add a cookie from kmart.com
The concerns of your privacy are important to us. Until further notice.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
What rights are you referring to? This is a SERVICE. You are free to CHOOSE not to use the service.
Talk to you in 50 years when your simulated brain is running on a Google Brain(tm) cluster, a SERVICE. And if you don't like their privacy policy that sells your thoughts to the highest bidder, you free to CHOOSE not to use it and die, as you naturally would have had a decade earlier.
This...
Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max
But there is no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people!
What rights are you referring to?
Your point is valid. But I can imagine a day, if it isn't already here, where the FBI can "request" database information from Google without a warrant, and make it against the law for Google to reveal that the FBI made a request.
Somewhat like this situation.
That would seem like a violation of individual rights to me.
If your business is insurance, it makes all kinds of business sense to identify individuals who look up high risk symptoms
An insurer wants to use search terms to discriminate against high-risk customers in order to offer the best value to low-risk customers. How would such an insurer distinguish a patient looking up information on her own symptoms from a practical nurse looking up information on his patients' symptoms?
Therefore, Trademark is Copyright.
Now you know part of why Mr. Stallman doesn't like the term "intellectual property".
Those people think of EVERYTHING!
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"