Slashdot Mirror
Google Defends Privacy Policies
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."
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
'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?
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?
Better than shitty can still be shitty
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?
'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
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?
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.
FTFY.
Remember, we should be going towards federated networks, not centralized!
Dilbert RSS feed
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 ||