Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Defends Privacy Policies

Posted by kdawson on from the data-liberation-front dept.

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."

114 comments

  1. It's a little late to do a Film at 11 joke so... by LostCluster · · Score: 3, 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.

  2. Transparent is no lie by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Transparent, as in not visible. Or at least buried deep in license agreements no one reads.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Transparent is no lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer to think of it as invisable.

    2. Re:Transparent is no lie by Jurily · · Score: 2, 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.

    3. Re:Transparent is no lie by pchan- · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Transparent is no lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That said, always keep in mind that for a company like Google, you are not the customer. You are the product.

      I happen to work at Google, on ads, and I can relay that I have never met an employee there who referred to users as "products". We call the groups of people "users" and "advertisers", while products are things like Search, GMail, AdWords, etc.

      Of course, if you think you are a "product" even if the people who work at Google don't see you that way, then you are also the product of just about any media you consume (even if you pay for it) or website you visit (even slashdot). I tend not to be so cynical and feel that intentions do matter, but I accept that others may not feel that way.

    5. Re:Transparent is no lie by Daengbo · · 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.

      --
      Put identity in the browser.
    6. Re:Transparent is no lie by RabbitWho · · Score: 1

      You don't read licence agreements? o.O

      --
      it's under construction
    7. Re:Transparent is no lie by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > 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-public information about me. If I were to decide open a Google account I would, of course, read the contract. If I didn't like it I would simply not open the account, not do so and then whine indignantly about my "rights".

      [1] No, viewing a Web page does not, in and of itself, create a contract.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  3. Facebook? Bueller? by rueger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    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.

    --
    Three Squirrels
    1. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was going to be my point exactly. Google is nothing in comparison to the privacy travesty that is Facebook. Buzz is looking better and better to me, but noone uses it. Ah well...

    2. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by adolf · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    4. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, 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).

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    6. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      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

      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

    7. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by vandan · · Score: 2, 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:
        - euthanasia
        - recreational drugs, including medical use, drug law reform, harm minimisation programs, etc
        - political activism
        - criticism of government
        - criticism of big business
        - workers' rights ... which are all quite valid topics, which ever side of the so-called 'great divide' you come down on.

    8. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by Kpau · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why are you automatically at ease with a corporation versus a government? Neither one has *your* best interests in mind when dealing with you.

    9. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      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).

    10. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by the_womble · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Governments are blocking that kind of discussion. The web sites banned in Australia include a euthanasia site and a pro-life site.

    11. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      - criticism of big business

      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 side. Thankfully, it's a damn big one.

    12. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          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 them, it should be fairly thick (probably 100 pages) by now. I've been considering doing a FIOA request on myself just to see what it says. Mostly it's fingerprints, background requests, etc, etc. Very amazingly mundane stuff.

          In dealing with the gov't a bit, I'm confident that their systems aren't tied together as well as people think. A random FBI agent isn't going to just click a button and pull your DMV record, tax history, phone call history, cell phone location (GPS or closest tower), credit card usages, etc. While it would make their lives a lot easier, there's stacks of paperwork involved, and people to request the info from. Not that it can't happen, but boring people like you and I will never justify the expense in man hours.

          I actually wouldn't mind the gov't finding me. I told them I want to work with them. They couldn't confirm my history (because I float around a lot), so if they do find me, it will be because they realize that they really do want me. :)

          The rest of the list is your normal user. Myself, I'm mostly under the radar on all points. My cell phone points towards an old maildrop. My cell phone is frequently off, and sometimes left behind somewhere but turned on, and I pick up a new prepaid one with bogus information. You gotta love throw-away phones. My home address ... well ... doesn't exist. I'm living on the goodness of others (do you have a spare room? Can I borrow it for a couple weeks?). My "important" mail gets delivered to any of a half dozen different places, with people I trust to open it and read it to me, or email me the details. I'm planning on becoming even more mobile, with even more remote places to be. As it is now, if friends find me, they usually ask "What state (or country) are you in?", since friends frequently don't know precisely where I am. Can I come over for a beer, or am I a couple thousand miles away, headed the wrong way. Even information on social networking sites contains bogus information. You can't even place my DOB, since there are 3 common ones that I use, and none are accurate. :) Some people have thought they've found my real name, which is just that much funnier, since they'll come up with yet another alias that I've put out there. My real name comes up with so many hits it isn't even funny. I didn't realize how many of "me" there are. :) In searching, it never comes up with the real me. Sometimes I swap cars with friends, just for the sake of doing it. I haven't driven my car in months, but someone else has been. They have a signed letter of authorization for use of my vehicle, in case things get touchy.

          I'm not paranoid. I'm just entertained with blending into the chaos. :)

          I think next week I'll be in Manhattan. Maybe physically. Maybe just according to all my information.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    13. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      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' private info public. That's a very different concern. I don't believe Google has been "caught" doing that yet...but expect a major upset if they do.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    14. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    15. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by TheLink · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's why it's funny because if Google really did anything about protecting privacy the various Governments wouldn't like it.

      Imagine if the warrants come in and Google said: "Sorry can't help, we've taken 100% effective measures to protect user privacy".

      --
    16. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by icebraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wave is looking better and better to me, but noone uses it. Ah well...

      FTFY.

      Remember, we should be going towards federated networks, not centralized!

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    17. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by gotpoetry · · Score: 1

      So you are either a homeless person with a borderline paranoid personality disorder OR a modern day hipster Jason Bourne without combat training.

      Imagine if you put all of that effort into a humanitarian job.

    18. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you sure I haven't had combat training?

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    19. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And use ThreadThat.com for any communications you want to remain private, secure, encrypted and under your control.

    20. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by gotpoetry · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am absolutely certain you do not have comba______

      *Sound of a gun with a silencer firing*

      *Sound a slashdot poster falling to the floor*

    21. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by shentino · · Score: 1

      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.

    22. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          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 time off for a family emergency. I'll be out of communication for a few weeks. Sorry about the short notice."

          [drags body to basement and throws it into the chest freezer]

          This will just have to do for a while.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    23. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      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!

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    24. Re:Facebook? Bueller? by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      For Google, I am a customer and their main source of revenue. If I leave and others do like me, Google dies. Some may say the customers are advertisers and websites displaying the ads, but the truth is that this entire business is based off the premise of someone using the services.

      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 alike), and even then they'd probably prefer I not vote because they know I won't vote for them.

  4. This bothers me by Andorin · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Being a Slashdot reader, I haven't actually read the article, but this line from the summary bugs me:

    '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.

    --
    That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
    1. Re:This bothers me by blackraven14250 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:This bothers me by kappa962 · · 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?

    3. Re:This bothers me by Psaakyrn · · Score: 1

      -- 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.

    4. Re:This bothers me by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:This bothers me by amRadioHed · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    6. Re:This bothers me by EdIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In a twisted way, eating Soylent Green is an improvement over the experience of starving to death. Starving to death sucks, and taking my chances of being scooped up by a truck is better.

      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.

    7. Re:This bothers me by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      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 better than seeing irrelevant ones. So is seeing unobtrusive text-based ads instead of Flash ads that are allowed to take 25% of your screen if you accidentally mouse over them. And of course Gmail is not only a fantastic web-based email service, but it literally single-handedly changed the industry. Remember email hosts with 25 megs of storage? Yeahhh... as we speak, Google is offering me 7.4 gigabytes. Of course that's far beyond what I will ever use, but it moved the entire industry with its initial limits.

      And, at least to me, Google still returns the best search results. That keeps me coming back to their search engine, using their services, seeing their ads. Making them money -- by keeping me happy.

      Spin it whichever way you please.

    8. Re:This bothers me by gmhowell · · Score: 2, 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?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    9. Re:This bothers me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, duh. Companies exist to make money for their shareholders. Film at 11. Maybe they assumed that the majority of people using the internet are intelli...nevermind. Microsoft don't say "Hi, come use Bing so we can gather your information and sell it to our advertisers because we want to make more money!" so why would, or should, Google? It's patently obvious to anyone with an IQ north of 90 that the customers of a search engine (as with television) are NOT the users, but the advertisers.

      Improving users' experiences has a direct positive effect on Google's ability to make money. More people using Google instead of Bing or Yahoo means more eyes on their customers' adverts. Their ability to target more relevant adverts relies on collecting information about peoples' search patterns. Their ultimate goal may be to make money, but a good user experience must surely be a goal to that end, if not in and of itself. The sentence you highlighted could end "...and how we use it to improve their experience, so they can decide whether they are willing to accept the inconvenience of us collecting the data in return for a better user experience". As long as users are aware of their policies, I have no issue with Google.

      An informed user is a user capable of deciding to use or not to use Google, or to circumvent Google's data acquisition methods. Demanding absolute honesty of a corporate entity, is like demanding that the Earth stop spinning, you can do it until you're blue in the face and the only thing that will change is the number of people who think you're a loon.

    10. Re:This bothers me by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    11. Re:This bothers me by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You should try Italian TV (especially RAI 1). The adverts are the best bit.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:This bothers me by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Running relevant ads is the only thing that makes half of the internet profitable. Why do you think Google is such a success, all those amazing products they sell constantly to everybody? How about most of the news sites? /.? I could go on and on with websites supported by ads - none of which would be possible without some data mining.

    13. Re:This bothers me by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      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.

    14. Re:This bothers me by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      Can you also stop all the sites out there to stop using google ads? I don't use Google, but can still tracked by them.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    15. Re:This bothers me by fastmikeonstilts · · Score: 1
      I'm also a frequent /. reader so I haven't actually read the piece either. Of course, that's never really a deterrent for a proper geek. I have to just point out - being that rare geek that is also a capitalist pig - that Google "collecting information to improve user experience" is equal to Google "collecting information to make money." Andorin wrote:

      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?

      Google is clearly in the business of improving user experience - and they are clearly unable to do this blindly. If they don't collect data - let's say information pertinent to page ranking, as in what the average user ends up clicking after a specific search - then the service that they provide will suffer. I for one have no problem with Google collecting information for the purposes of page ranking, personalised ad displays, UI optimatization, or even just debugging. That is of clear benefit to me; and the second that I think there is an imbalance between Google's goal of improving my searches, my gmail, my web shopping, and their data collection, I will drop them to the floor like a retarded baby. I DO have a problem with current legislation allowing governments all over the friggin place access to the information that Google holds on me. That information is between me and Mr. Google for the purpose of allowing them to serve me better, all the while making money of me. That is the beauty of capitalism.

    16. Re:This bothers me by Anonymous Coward · · 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?!

    17. Re:This bothers me by EdIII · · Score: 1

      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 view an advertisement, much less click it. Of course they need to get paid, and advertising is an obvious way to do that. No objections.

    18. Re:This bothers me by EdIII · · Score: 2, 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.

    19. Re:This bothers me by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      So, you'd rather lose half (if not more) of the content on the internet than let companies like Google have the anonymized usage data?

    20. Re:This bothers me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit, you don't need data mining to advertise, most of the web doesn't need personalized adds.

      Are you on a gaming site? Advertise games.
      Are you on a traveling site? Advertise tours.
      Are you on a gardening site? Advertise gardening tools and medicines for old people.

      Mybe this doesn't work for email, but for most website data mining is superfluous. A fast food website doesn't need to know that I'm in the market for miniature plane figures.

    21. Re:This bothers me by EdIII · · Score: 1

      So, you'd rather lose half (if not more) of the content on the internet than let companies like Google have the anonymized usage data?

      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 trust that company.

      Even with the establishment of trust, there are laws being put forth, and talk of new laws, by various governments to force companies to maintain non-anonymous usage data and to release such data on demand, and punish companies that acknowledge this is actually happening. See Exhibit A, the Patriot (not patriotic at all) Act.

      The only anonymity we can receive is the anonymity that we take by force. It is not a default state of being at this point and requires a constant conscious effort to maintain it, and the value of that state of being is truly priceless.

      You are worried about the possibility of Internet commerce, and its effect on the economy, disappearing if they no longer had any non-anonymous usage data being shared between them and used to advertise. If you think Google is working with anonymous usage data internally, you are sorely misinformed. No company works with anonymous usage data internally. They only claim to make it anonymous with 3rd parties which is a legal distinction easily circumvented with a couple of fancy documents. The government in this context, is not a 3rd party. They are God, The Alpha and The Omega, and will put you and the entire board of directors in jail if you don't recognize that all the information you possess has always been in the possession of the Intelligence Community to provide the citizenry with National Security. Companies merely exist to them as useful instruments to obtain and store the data for them till they can pick it up at their convenience.

      Once again, it is not worth it. The true value of our anonymity and privacy is misunderstood, undervalued, and all too freely given away for some pretty trinkets, convenience, and graphical user interfaces showing how many virtual friends, virtual pets, and virtual crops we have.

      You had better start stockpiling food and the Internet (metaphorically speaking) because regardless of people like me and the "Privacy" advocates, advertising on the Internet is slowly dying. It is dying on the cable and satellite networks too. If you think our economy is tied to advertising, we are in big trouble. It is harder than ever to get advertisements to be seen by Joe Public. People don't like advertisements and if there is a way to skip them, block them, etc. they are progressively choosing to do so in greater numbers each year. Advertising in general has seen revenue decline consistently year by year for the last decade.

      All of my interests aside, you should figure out a solution to that problem then. One way or the other, we may lose half the content on the Internet.

    22. Re:This bothers me by yuhong · · Score: 1

      Well, does the PATRIOT Act really have requirements to retain any user data?

    23. Re:This bothers me by EdIII · · Score: 1

      In an indirect way yes.

      However, that was not what I was specifically referring to.

      release such data on demand, and punish companies that acknowledge this is actually happening

      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 ability of government to obtain data. What was so fantastically disturbing is that complaining about it, or standing up for your customers Constitutional rights, became punishable by the immediate loss of your freedom under the ominous and nebulous terms of "National Security".

      Now because this is Slashdot, I will indulge myself with a Star Wars analogy, by reminding you that in Emperor Palpatine promised to assume powers in a time of insecurity and uncertainty and to:

      It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy... I love the Republic. The fact that this crisis is demanding I be given absolute power to rule over you is evident. But I am mild by nature and have no desire to destroy the democratic process. The power you give me I will lay down when this crisis has abated , I promise you. And all I ask in return is when my current term of office is over, you allow me to reture and live out my life in peace.

      The Patriot Act was largely justified by the extreme circumstances directly after 9/11 and the Sunset provisions were put in the bill to mollify the opponents by claiming the extraordinary powers and dilution of Constitutional rights and Judicial checks and balances against the Executive were to only be temporary till we won the War on Terror.

      It's 2010 and the most concerning aspects of the Patriot Act are still with us, and are likely to remain permanent, as the condition of being in a War on Terror is conveniently, without an end in sight.

      Even today, that term, National Security, is attempting to obfuscate and rob the American people of any review over ACTA, which I am sure you must of heard something about here on Slashdot.

      Our greatest defense against the ever growing levels of corruption against the government will be our Privacy and Anonymity. Even if a corporation wanted to do the right thing, it is far more likely that the owners and operators of that company would give in to the extreme duress presented to them by the Intelligence Community and fail to protect us.

      The only defense against it, is not letting the corporations possess any useful information about is in the first place. Not an easy thing to do. However, not providing your identity to Google is a damn good place to start, and that is nothing specifically against Google.

    24. Re:This bothers me by yuhong · · Score: 1

      I know, I read all about it. The best solution of course would be to fix the government, but it is not that easy. It will be worth it though.

    25. Re:This bothers me by Caetel · · Score: 1

      But Adblock only works when the minority are using it. If ad blocking was performed by the majority of web users, then much of the content of the Internet would cease to exist, at least no financial cost form.

  5. In Soviet Russia, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    policies defends Google.

  6. Why am I not surprised. by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, 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?

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  7. Still? Or Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure I understand the problem here, there was some design decision which made Google Buzz reveal information that users didn't want revealed and they fixed it quickly. Why are we still bitching about it? Plenty of companies just say "Fuck you" and go about there way.

  8. better solutions? by viperblades · · 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?

    1. Re:better solutions? by Stan92057 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't have a problem with google serving us with ads based on our search queries,its a fair exchange. But beyond that google or any other search Provider, has no business building up some kinda advertising profile of my wed history. That is far and beyond the service they provided me i believe.They don't need my IP number,they don't need to know what web site i choose or anything else except the search term i use to serve me an ad.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    2. Re:better solutions? by Anonymous Coward · · 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/

      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.

    3. Re:better solutions? by Andorin · · Score: 1

      +1. I've been using StartPage for a while, which is run by ixquick. Admittedly, it sometimes doesn't give me what I'm searching for, but it usually does, and they do not record your IP address at all. Very privacy-oriented.

      --
      That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
    4. Re:better solutions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      http://www.yauba.com/
      https://www.ixquick.com/
      http://www.cuil.com/

    5. Re:better solutions? by Malyven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or do you see another search engine providing as much internal Data as google does? I have yet to see another site like http://www.google.com/governmentrequests/ Sure it's not super detailed but it's a hell of lot better than anything else out there.

    6. Re:better solutions? by BikeHelmet · · Score: 2, 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/

      P.S. I respect Google for being so truthful about how things are.

    7. Re:better solutions? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Awesome timing, since Scroogle died yesterday. =\

    8. Re:better solutions? by Tromad · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://duckduckgo.com/privacy.html
      They don't keep search logs. I am not connected in any way other than occasionally using it.

    9. Re:better solutions? by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      Why should i or anyone else have to jump through hoops not to be spied on. And we don't need to be logged in in-order to be tracked,they just use our IP Address. Also Google has a program to stop them from adding cookies,It doesn't work,every single day my anti virus removes tracking cookies,they happen to be doubleclick cookies,they belong to google.Nuf said! I remember when google first came out, it was a time during everyone was spying, tracking, using horrible flashing banner ads. Google had NO graphic ads on there search page,this is what made google super popular,now there is a graphic ad for the chrome browser and they spy with the best of the competition. And don't forget they were sued for putting payed ads on top of everything else without letting people know they were payed ads and were not the top search results, so google isn't this do no evil company,there just getting there slower then everyone else. PS thanks to the Tip for the ghost plugin,im eager to see what it finds. :)

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    10. Re:better solutions? by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      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.

  9. Please translate this for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "'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."

    Does transparent mean leaving users clueless? It sure sounds like it to me.

  10. Thinking of just saying "FY, FB" by Raseri · · Score: 1

    especially with their most recent round of egregious bullshit, but does anyone actually use Buzz? I was messing around with it earlier today, and it seems a lot less annoying than Facebook; I just don't think I know ANYONE that uses it. Maybe it's just still too new? It's hard to say, but the way FB does things is getting more ridiculous all the time.

    --
    Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
    1. Re:Thinking of just saying "FY, FB" by Daengbo · · 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.

      --
      Put identity in the browser.
  11. High Bar by MushMouth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Better than shitty can still be shitty

    1. Re:High Bar by siloko · · Score: 1

      Er no. Better than shitty is by definition 'Not shitty'. If it were shitty it would be 'shitty', plain and simple. Better than shitty may simply be 'better than shitty', or it may be something more prosaic, like 'acceptable', however what it definitely isn't is just 'shitty'. Less than one is be definition not one.

    2. Re:High Bar by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Better than shitty is by definition 'Not shitty'. If it were shitty it would be 'shitty', plain and simple. Better than shitty may simply be 'better than shitty', or it may be something more prosaic, like 'acceptable', however what it definitely isn't is just 'shitty'. Less than one is be definition not one.

      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?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:High Bar by siloko · · Score: 1

      You mean taking words to be logically distinct categories can be erroneous? Actually that explains quite a lot . . .

      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 . . .

    4. Re:High Bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would you two fucking spergs get a room?

  12. Privacy Nuts by b4upoo · · Score: 1, 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 fact that both people and organizations who collect data can not be discovered unless everyone has the right to search everyone else's files. How can you know how much data I have collected about you without being free to examine all the files in my home and offices? In other words you really can not have privacy. It is a logically impossible situation.

    1. Re:Privacy Nuts by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So then of course the obvious answer, since we can't have privacy, is to flood the world with information about every single person... so long as you have enough money to pay for that information.

      That's a MUCH better logical situation. It's still bullshit, but that didn't stop you, so why should it stop me?

    2. Re:Privacy Nuts by OrwellianLurker · · Score: 4, 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

      --
      'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
  13. Ya know,google shouldn't be patting themselves on by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Ya know,google shouldn't be patting themselves on the back about anything they did with Buzz. With all that facebook,myspace has don't before them screwing up privacy and adding features with out notice. Buzz should have never been released,but they took advantage of there user Base for an instant social network that no one had any clue about.No,google privacy policy's and data collection is IMO anti Privacy. We should have no complaints that they serve us with advertising from the search term searched,anything else is spying and NOTB

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  14. ORLY? by Bob9113 · · Score: 2, 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.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    1. Re:ORLY? by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah. It's too bad they don't have easy to follow instructions 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.)

    2. Re:ORLY? by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      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 comes to contemplating public policy, We The People deserve and should demand honesty. We cannot have a meaningful discussion about these things if we don't talk plain.

      They could say, "We are more transparent than most, though we have not yet chosen to publish everything for cost efficiency reasons." That would be true and, frankly, I would accept it. In fact I personally feel that their level of diligence is sufficient. That does not make it OK to lie in a discussion about public policy.

      I have, and believe we all should have, a zero tolerance policy for liars in the public forum.

      --
      Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  15. It's like dejavu all over again! by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 4, 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?

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    1. Re:It's like dejavu all over again! by genericpoweruser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True enough, but as another poster pointed out http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1647548&cid=32165644/ there are instances where companies can be compelled to reveal all their information about you.

      --
      A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
    2. Re:It's like dejavu all over again! by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, 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.

    3. Re:It's like dejavu all over again! by dcmoebius · · 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 to a new site. But Facebook's value is in its membership, which no other company is offering at the moment.

      As it stands now, the relationship between the user and Google is much more balanced, which makes Google at least marginally interested in their customers. Facebook, barring a massive decline in membership, simply doesn't care.

      So long as Google is being kept honest by the legitimate possibility of losing revenue, they'll stay in group b).

    4. Re:It's like dejavu all over again! by Hozza · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:It's like dejavu all over again! by z0idberg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lawfully issued from which country?

    6. Re:It's like dejavu all over again! by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      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 internet meant something? Remember Usenet, and the binary groups? remember when you used a personal home page to share whatever you wanted about yourself, instead of turning in all your data and photos to facebook?

      How did we allowed this to happen to the Internet? And the worst part, how did WE, /.ers, become part of the cancer that is killing the net?

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  16. Facebook? Bueller? Godwined! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, that Mussolini guy was a lot nicer than Adolf

    1. Re:Facebook? Bueller? Godwined! by Daengbo · · 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.

      --
      Put identity in the browser.
    2. Re:Facebook? Bueller? Godwined! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just it. Facebook and Google aren't of a different class. One is just more subtle than the other. The goal is still domination.

  17. There already exist a better solution. by u64 · · 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 have that kind of information. For any reason.

  18. Dear Google. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  19. Privacy = Information. What does Google trade in? by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 1

    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 make money so long as it's locked up. If your intimate details are revealed to the web, you might lose sleep over it but Google can only make money out of it.

    This works so long as we trust Google, and mostly they've kept that trust. But in Buzz and with Doubleclick they're skirting close to the edge. They want to see how far they can push us, and that's proving a moving target. But even if they do push us too far, look at Yahoo! Even after the revelation they were ratting out their Chinese users to the Chinese government, many people continue to have a Yahoo email account anyway. The same applies to the recent leaking of Microsoft documents showing they will sell info on you to 'law enforcement' (for a fee), but most people still use Windows.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/technology/07yahoo.html
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10459676-38.html

    Don't trust Privacy Law to protect you. In many countries its a feel-good toothless tiger. Take Australia's. Here's a feel-good FAQ with a feel-good quiz, but what it doesn't mention is that if someone violates your privacy you have no legal recourse. The worst the Privacy Commissioner can do is issue a non-binding finding that has no financial, civil or criminal penalty.

    http://www.privacy.gov.au/faq/individuals

  20. Great! by fransantosjun · · Score: 1

    Yeah, this is so great!! Francisco Santos. fransantosjun@gmail.com

  21. Whitewash by dugeen · · Score: 1

    Google's methods are to fob off the information commissioners with reassurances that aren't backed by fact. For example in the UK, you can remove your house from StreetView - but only if you send Google, at your own expense, a copy of photographic identification, which they can reject for reasons unknown. The IC doesn't allow any other data holder to place arbitrary, irrelevant restrictions on remove requests like this.

  22. the end of Privacy by Obscurity by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  23. Fluffy bunnies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because, corporations should make our lives better for the fluffy bunny happy feelings it gives them.

    Doing it for money is just dirty.

    Personally, Google scares me with how much information they gather. But since gathering information is their job (both information to attract users with search and user information to sell to advertisers), they have to find some way to make money from it or their services will no longer be available for us to use. I would love if search were as 'free' as it is made out to be, but obviously it can't be as there are costs to providing it.

  24. service vs business by jDeepbeep · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are mistaken, advertising is their core business.

    I consider search to be their main service, but advertising to be their main business.

    --
    Reply to That ||
  25. Google is PURE Evil by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

    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 aspirations.

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:Google is PURE Evil by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      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 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.

      --
      $ make available
  26. Relevancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they don't need to know what web site i choose

    I would counter that they do. Well they don't really need to know which one you clicked on, but they do need to know which results performed well when served. You think their algorithm is static? I am certain that there is a feedback loop included where they monitor which results are actually clicked on when served (hence why they find it useful to provide some parts of the page in a preview for us), the sites that perform well (wikipedia for instance) get bubbled up to the top and those that perform poorly bubble down to the bottom. Trust me, they need that information to keep their engine optimized, they are using genetic algorithms to do so and the populous is the selection routine.

    How do I know this is what they do? It is what I would do in their place.

  27. Even simpler solution with real control Re:ORLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use the Mozilla NoScript plugin and forbid doubleclick.net

    Not hard at all and it doesn't depend on transparency.

    Nothing against Google, I trust Google far more than I trust the EU or any nation state and I actively mistrust the EU Data Retention Directive which is nothing but a fascist/totalitarian wet dream that is both guaranteed and begging to be misused both internally and externally and both by "authorized" and "unauthorized" users. In fact that directive destroys the very foundations of law by assuming everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

    P.S. After using NoScript follow up by donating to sites, organizations, causes and programs (like NoScript) worth your support at least once a year. Most of us can afford a few USD (and usually more) to a handful of recipients. Some places like for example OpenBSD also have and welcome fixed monthly donations which help them even more in the form of predictability.

    I don't use OpenBSD right now but I wouldn't want a world without OpenBSD.
    I do use NoScript and now wouldn't consider browsing without it.
    I don't agree with absolutely everything the EFF and FSF says and does but then again some of the things they say and do are so extremely important for the future of freedom that it obliterates minor disagreements.
    And then there are general web sites I just wouldn't want to be without and non-computer efforts I want to contribute towards.

    P.P.S. Fuck the US, fuck the EU, fuck corrupt authorities everywhere, prepare for resistance, prepare for violence, fight for freedom.

    Love from Norway (the shit is here as well now as the "Labor" Party and half the "Conservatives" want to make the DRD a Norwegian law through EFTA).

  28. Facebook is the true evil by opus_magnum · · Score: 1

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/196023/facebook_privacy.html I wonder when the privacy commissioners will start worrying about it.

    1. Re:Facebook is the true evil by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

      Yeah - facebook is Evil's greased on-ramp. Google is the roundabout with no exit.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell