Slashdot Mirror
Google ToS Change Means Your Photo Could Go In Ads
An anonymous reader writes "Google [on Friday] announced an upcoming change to its terms of service that will let the company add users' names and photos to certain parts of its advertising as of November 11. Make no mistake: this is a direct attack against Facebook. One of the few advantages of Google+ is that it features no ads. To be perfectly clear, Google isn't changing that. Google+ will still have a clean interface, at least for the foreseeable future. Instead, Google is tying Google+ into yet another one of its properties, and arguably its most important one: Google Ads."
How is this an attack against Facebook? Are they competing for the title of "most hated social network"?
Back to not using social media again.
As I read the ToS, this is an opt in. So if you for some reason want to show your google+ friends, followers, or the world that you "+1" something, your can turn this feature on.
because we'll be evil for you!
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
This only happens when you participate in a similar activity, such as using +1, writing a review, or following a product. These actions already act as endorsements within your circles; the new ads only make them more explicit. In my view, this is merely yet another reason to avoid putting anything on your Google+ profile, if you needed one. All this spying and marketing is slowly but surely making social network users shut up - a very good thing indeed.
It seems like there are three big differences between how Google is handling this and how Facebook handled this:
I may have issues with how they're forcing some activities to be public only, but I can't fault them for trying to make it very clear what is public, what is private, and how they intend to respect the difference between the two.
If by few advantages you mean in addition to having a superior mobile app, better website, yes it is a small thing.
If someone is going to get your info, it may as well be the same company who knows how often you search for midget porn as well (you, not me).
1. You can't opt-out of your Google+ information being used for ads.
2. Your search history, most recently visited web pages and all your bookmarks are automatically shared via Google+. It will be an opt-in program.
3. Now you can't opt-out. This feature will be enabled for all users.
4. All your emails sent to your Gmail address will be automatically copied over to your Google+ page for the public to see. It will be an opt-in program.
5. Now you can't opt-out. This feature will be enabled for all users.
6. Your computer/phone/google glass will automatically be streaming audio/video to your google+ hangout whenever those devices are switched on. It will be an opt-in program.
7. Now you can't opt-out. This feature will be enabled for all users.
8. Oh wow! Google developed a neural interface that can translates your innermost thoughts into words. This interface will automatically post all your most private thoughts onto your google+ page. It will be an opt-in program.
9. Now you can't opt-out. This feature will be enabled for all users.
10. Introducing google Borg. I complete and total neural interface that allows google to control your thoughts and your body. The google+ collective will modulate your daily activities for maximum efficiency and benefit to society. It will be an opt-in program.
11. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated!
Does it impact photos on Picasa?
This is kind of what Amazon.com already does with their reviews, isn't it?
I don't have a Facebook or Google Plus account, and there are no pics of me on the Interwebs.
Try adding my face to ads, I'll be impressed if you managed to do it. LOL.
I just noted a curious fact.
I had a Firefox extension installed that kept me informed about the personal information I was sharing with the sites visited. This extension had a nice calculator, too, letting me check how much my personal information was worth for Google and Facebook advertisers, so I could restrict the settings and diminish my "value" as an ad target.
Before installing the plug-in I was worth more than 750$/year for Google and 134$/year for Facebook. After "closing" the holes, my value as ad target had dropped to 70$/year for Google and 0$ for Facebook.
I probably installed this extension one year ago. I didn't check it often. I just knew it was there because I saw the icon in the Firefox bar. Today I noted that it's not there anymore. Checking the "Extensions" it appears that it has been actually disabled. Not by me, that's for sure.
I believe there must be some "incompatibility" with the latest Firefox release, although normally Firefox informs me when an extension is disabled. Probably there are "software incompatibilities" and "incompatibilities" of a different kind.
Very curious, indeed.
Can i suggest that as a counter you change your profile picture? Set it as a QR code of something abusive towards either Facebook or Google+, or a link to an article criticising this policy.
I had to login to write this. Many people online have for various reasons difficulties understanding the consequences of things like these. By having risky options "Default is On" and "You can opt out" they will be tricked into allowing Google to use their name and picture in ads. A company claiming to act responsible and "Do no Evil" should not need to do questionable acts like these.
I know some telemarketers exploit this and sell their products to people with mental problems, dementia and what not. We all expect Facebook to con people into writing things they later on make publicly available. But for Google to take a step in the same direction is actually much worse since we are stupid enough to expect them to do no evil and therefore are more easily duped.
Oh, right, I forget that people actually use the web without an ad blocker.
The last time I logged into Google, there was a banner on the top of the browser window. "Our Privacy Policies Have Changed" and such, in bright Google blue.
I actually read the privacy policy change.
Then I unticked the box. They won't be using my "face" in ads. Bam.
This is really, really hard to do.
I wish some other (nearly all) companies were this forthcoming with their privacy policy changes. Especially when they put the onus on the user to actively diff the changes for their own selves in order to actually find them. They don't even take the minimum effort to post a notice.
--
BMO
Perfect use case for user-centric DRM. ;-) I can see a class action anyway.
There's a term for the Wall St. gangsters, the "white-shoe boys." What would be the equivalent term for Brin, Schmidt, Zuckerberg, Bezos, et. al. Silly Valley robber barons. Or are they still supposed to be heroes?
Yeah, I know, they're creatures of the vulture capitalist wing of the WSBs, and the governement, but there still ought to be term that captures the special character of the dot-coms.
My new profile pic will be :)
a picture of myself holding a sign, "Don't buy this stuff please"
i hope Google likes it as i'm pretty well hung...
I think everyone should change their image to goatse or tub girl and +1 the hell out of every thing. I think google would respond posthaste when their advertisers shit themselves (pun intended) when that shows up in their ads
It seems Google Apps accounts are opted out by default, but Gmail and other regular Google accounts may be opted in by default.
Still, they have made it very clear how to turn it off, and you would still need to comment, +1, or follow something for "Sharing" to kick in. I can kinda see how it's a nuisance, but they are being very up-front about it and making sure all user are notified via several notification methods.
I'm more bothered by the half-assed attempt to tie my Google account and real name to things like YouTube. Those prompts are (still) down right infuriating (and buggy, a few times I thought it might have change my YouTube account name).
This however, is hardly a blip for me. (Although to be fair, I use an Apps account).
PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
Time to watermark all your photos with Copyright 2013 on them.
No, time to watermark all your photos with Copyright Disney 2013. Google wont care about individual photographers copyrights any more than Hot Topic does, but even Google hesitates over a copyright fight with the Mouse. (enough so that you might even find your photos yanked if you do that)
Just to add some info here, when I checked that page, that option was already unchecked for me by default. I'm pretty sure I didn't uncheck it. So Google clearly knows enough about me to know that I don't want that option before they even ask.
It's worth mentioning that Google now insists that images submitted by commercial sites for google shopping (google base) now contain no copyright or other identifying verbiage, or they will lock you out of base/shopping. They use these images, for instance that we have produced, to advertise products for other companies.
We stopped using google base over this issue. When we spend time doing product photography, we are NOT ok with those photos being used by google to promote our competitors.
I would like all my reviews to show up publically when people search for stuff. That's why I wrote the reviews. I've put reviews on Amazon, TripAdvisor, Yelp, Booking.com, etc... When a product or service has been outstanding I want others to know it worked for me. When a product or service sucks I want to help steer people away from them.
Google's implementation seems great. I can choose to review something, I can choose to make it public or private or share it with specific people like "family" so that 6 months later when my mom is looking for a digital camera and types "digital camera" into google she seems my reviews. That sounds awesome to me.
Of course if Google only shows positive reviews that would be bad but AFAICT that's not what they're doing. I've certainly googled for stuff and seen 1 and 2 star ratings.
Just more fuel to the quest of being free of Googles services. But Google can be happy enough people in the world don't care about their private information. Ohh hey a 'free' service...
They are evil. They took the public thing that I said was public when I created it and are showing it in useful public contexts to ruin my public reputation based on the public thing that I posted. They have the gall to let me turn off the showing of the public thing to the public which makes no sense at all.
In reality this is actually kind of neat -- for example, in play store if someone in my circles has reviewed or +1'ed something it shows it to me on the assumption that I care more about people closer to me than .
Badddd Google!
So don't log in to Google, don't +1 things, and don't play their game. Then what they are doing has no value, and they'll drop it.
Attack on privacy is a far more correct and honest asessment.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
I went in and checked my settings and it was turned off, unless that option existed a year ago when I first signed up and I disabled it at that time, then the option is disabled by default and you have nothing to worry about. Also, it merely takes things like pluses and reviews you've submitted on Google using your G+ profile or GMail account and shows that to other people in your circles in the ads that appear to them. No different then what Facebook does with Likes from friends. In fact, Facebook is far worse as it is almost impossible to manage privacy there to avoid such crap.