Google Reader Begins Sharing Private Data

Felipe Hoffa writes "One week ago Google Reader's team decided to begin showing your private data to all your GMail contacts. No need to opt-in, no way to opt-out. Complaints haven't been answered. Some users share their problems, including one family who says they won't be able to enjoy this Christmas because of this 'feature.' Will Google start doing this with all their products? You can check a summary of complaints in my journal here or browse the whole thread in Google Groups."

Comments

Ok right....

[Phil246]

Ive just had a quick check.
There is a shared items area in my google reader, however none of my feeds are listed in there.

that is to say - they are not shared by default.
Granted, the feature is there but its hardly invading my privacy without me having a say in what can and cannot be displayed - and by default for me nothing is.

Re:Ok right....

[ironfrost]

The summary is somewhat misleading - what people are complaining about is that items in the 'shared items' area are now shared with all your gmail contacts (which automatically includes anyone with a gmail account that you have sent an email to), rather than having to manually add contacts as before.

I don't get it

[lb746]

This seems like they just added the same feature that make Del.icio.us such a popular sight. I can understand if this is sharing your pr0n folder with grandma, but if your using an RSS feed for that, than I'm just way behind the times I guess?

Maybe someone with personal experience can help explain this better than the linked articles did. Did it automatically check all your previously stored items as being shared, or does it just default share everything?

Re:I don't get it

[morgan_greywolf]

Okay. Let's say you're a pagan or a Wiccan or a Druid or something like that. Your fundamentalist Christian family, all of which have gmail accounts because you sent them invitations because you thought it was soo cool, has no idea of your alternative religious beliefs. You've subscribed to feeds from Witchvox.com and a number of similar sites.

What Google essentially did just 'outed' you to them.

Speaking as neopagan practitioner and priest (out of the closet), I can say that this situation would be not be unlikely at all.

Re:I never "got" GMail

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Because Google is the best company there has ever been at Internet marketing. It's just that simple.

Misleading article

[BlizzardandBlaze]

...No need to opt-in, no way to opt-out...

Not exactly. According to Google:

"You can hide items from any friend you don't want to see, and you can also opt out of sharing by removing all your shared items."

A little more info

[pembo13]

First of all, I had no idea what Google reader is: which already makes it a low privacy risk to me. So I did a google for Google Reader, and found this page: http://www.google.com/reader/view/#directory-welcome-page. I'm not sure if the message on the side was always there, but it clearly states that it shares the data with "friends". "friends" being people on your google talk list.

I watched the video introduction about it, and it didn't seem to require personal data to use. Nor did the article summary say what the personal data that it was sharing is. So I'm going to guess it is sharing what ever it is that it is helping you get.

What this says to me is that people are still working with the assumption that things online apps hosted by third-parties help them to get it still private. I don't trust my ISP, farless Google. My lack of trust however, doesn't prevent me from consuming their useful services.

When even the original poster stops ReadingTFA

[nick_davison]

From the original poster:

No need to opt-in, no way to opt-out. From the initial, very first comment in the thread they link to:

You can hide items from any friend you don't want to see, and you can also opt out of sharing by removing all your shared items. Sure, it's a pain: having to disable all of your shared items if you don't, you know, want to share. But it's not exactly "no way to opt-out" when the very first thing they do is tell you how to.

Now, had they been straight and called it for what it is, "You're auto opted in and the only way to opt out is a painful and destructive process that devalues other aspects." then that would be one thing. Blatantly misrepresenting to jump to the head of the wambulance queue - to the point where it's hard to believe it was anything other than deliberate - just devalues your point and loses you all credibility, even for your valid points.

Re:Tempest in a Teapot

[X]

Dude, it is only sharing articles that you clicked on the "share" icon for, and only with your contacts. If you never click on the share icon, nobody sees anything.

This isn't one of those international conglomerate conspiracy theories.

Yowza, another kdawson turd

[fluxrad]

Funny, I actually didn't really care what /. editor posted which story until I read a couple of stinkers six months ago in which half the posters pointed out what a crappy editor kdawson was. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, then, to find this bit of FUD posted by the infamous editor as well.

Seriously, the first link is to a self-referenced Slashdot Journal. The second link is to a google groups thread discussing how google shares with your friends data that you've opted to share with your friends!!!

Seriously. This article is crap.