I wonder if Gizmodo will update their assassination piece from yesterday and remove all the sensationalistic garbage they tried to pass off as news.
Being the upstart rebel on the side of the people -- an alternative to subjugation to and controls from 'the man' -- is what gained Google EVERYTHING they have and are today. So, it is shocking now how rapidly and unashamedly Google fires off one glaring reminder after another that they have completely abandoned that corporate identity. I can only hope and firmly believe that forgetting where they came from will very soon start to show on Google's bottom line as some new rebel upstarts come along with fresh ideas and an attitude of service, not exploitation. We, the people, shall flock to the NEXT Googles as quickly as they can surface! This blog post is the most transparently veiled line of disingenuous corporate BS I've ever read.
Laz - sounds similar to the user handle that was spamming the help forum the other day with the same drivel
Nice corporate speak. As to your first bullet point, since it's all about me, why not require me to opt in to your cross-platform program? Would the reason be that few people would and your profits be reduced? Yep. So please don't tell me this change is for me. It is for your bottom line. You are allowed to do it, currently, hopefully, government will begin to distrust you at a level equal to Facebook and force all monopolies to play nice as you don't seem willing to do so on your own.
If all you want is to help "me", why not give "me" the option of opting out?
Another giant leap for Google! A few more steps and they will become the forgotten tribe that fell off the face(book) of Earth. Corporate greed is alive and well, with and without bailouts. I have a friend who believes an insurrection by the people of America is actually possible. I'm still in the letter-writing stage and deleting Google programs and apps one-by-one, but hopefully others are plotting in smoke-free rooms. PLA
lol, at the people requesting for the ability to opt-out.Opt-out of what? There isn't even anything new to be opted out of.
The answer for those who want to "opt out" from these policies is to QUIT. But wait a second you guys want to use Gmail and google search and don't say yes to their terms? Did anybody else ever let you do that?Guys, please stop it and if you want to be unknown simply log out and then search.
I have no intention of being lectured about privacy by a company whose Chairman thinks that they know so much about users that people should consider changing their names.All I'm asking is this: is the right to privacy too much to ask for? Does a once-beloved company like Google not have the decency to offer its users the ability to opt out of being tracked?
Everyone has to remember that people were once up in arms over the number of words on their home page. Remember those days?Google has always been the company that people love to hate.
Google is right to do what it is doing. Did people read what Betsy Masiello wrote before they posted negative responses?
Funny how everyone is complaining about Google not allowing them to opt-out or opt-in. You opt-in when you use the NO COST services they provide you. I feel sorry for Google, they have to deal with some very idiotic customers.
Did you guys even read the post? It listed a bunch of ways that you can opt out of these features that you have a paranoid fear of. The reason it is not opt-in is that the VAST majority of people don't pay attention to any of this, just as the VAST majority of people don't even know what search engine they use.If you are one of the people who IS aware of such things, then it should not be difficult for you to opt-out. If you are so paranoid that you WANT all of your Google services to act like separate accounts, then go and make separate accounts for them.This is not rocket science, people. I am amazed at the number of people, like Laz, who try to pump themselves up by casting stones at Google.
An official Google blog, and five out of eighteen comments are spam comments. No way to report these comments as spam, no way to report the spam-user's profile page.Not really trying, are you, Google?
To people who are concerned about companies collecting your interests, you should just hit that little power button and forget about the internet because one way or another any company will collect that data.Kudos to Google for the effort on privacy.
since when can i use seperate accounts for google and youtube? when logging in at google this account is used for youtube and vice versa. logging off and on with the other account is possible but not very comfortable!
"For example, you can have a Google Account and choose to use Gmail, but not use Google+"That's extremely misleading since users now must create a G+ profile to sign up for Gmail.
"That's extremely misleading since users now must create a G+ profile to sign up for Gmail."No, you don't. Read.
axe:Not quite. I just sighed up for a new account last week. It asked me after I finished if I wanted to use Google+ as well and I said no (since I had no need). It's never bothered me again. The statement wasn't misleading at all; if you want separate accounts then make separate accounts. It's not rocket science here.Why is this a big deal? Google has been sharing info between services for years now. Someone point out to me what changed that suddenly made this a big deal because I don't get it.
Folks.. you certainly can opt out if you choose, but opting out means cancelling your account.The account/use of services go hand in hand with the Terms of Service. You don't get one without the other.It's much like telling the phone company that you want the phone, but you want to opt out of the monthly payment.
Jack, your analogy is way off.If your phone company tells you they will listen in on your calls and provide you with ads from time to time depending on the content of your conversations, that is the equivalent here. I'm not sure how many people will sign up for it, even if such a service were offered for "free".
I'd follow up on your analogies, but it would get messy so instead:When you were creating your Google accounts, remember that long, long page that had a long, long document and an "Accept" thingie in the end?You didn't read that did you? Because if you had, you would've known that it is a binding contract and that it says exactly what Google will be doing with the information you communicate with them.But you probably didn't read it because it was long, boring, or dare I say complicated.So they made things shorter and simpler. The operation behind the contracts has not changed. Google have been using your data across their network for a long while now. They just went out of their way to outline things, just for busy people like you.Read contracts, mate. Read them, carefully. If you don't like them, don't sign them. If you don't like them but still want the perks, deal with the dilemma on your own.
This is such a ridiculous attempt to get a story right for something that is completely filled with inconsistency.This thing needs to be opt-in. You change the processing of personal data, you need to get my explicit consent for the new purpose. (you might want to read the safe harbor agreement again) So lucky the new EU-Regulation is not in place yet.With regard to Safe Harbor (mentioned in your policy) turns out: your 'self' - certification has expired.http://safeharbor.export.gov/companyinfo.aspx?id=10543I can not understand how your own employees are not opposing this. Where is the integrity? In Shareholder Value?
It is opt-in. You've been lied to by the sensationalists.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I am not convienced. When I went to cancel parts of my google account that were not essential until I can move my email and mobile services to another option it claimed I had deleted sub accounts and they are still there. Google has forgotten its "do no evil" and become the evil.It has been a good many years and I will miss you google but, until you change this myself and my family cannot work with you!
You're doing it wrong.
Thanks, Peter. I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong, though. I can post PART 3 (of 4), but not PARTS 1, 2 and 4. (It's a long post, so had to be split up.)Each post is under the limit of 4000 characters. And when I post them, each is "saved" on the comment-submission page. If you are subscribing to this post, you are likely getting e-mail about my posts that confirm successful submission, too.But they won't show up on THIS page.Let's see if this post does. In any event, I'll try Chrome. I've seen a thread that says Chrome may help (although I am not sure the problem is related).If you have any ideas, I'm all ears. :-)All the best,Ken Evoy
PART 2 of 7: Speaking to "EveryMan"With that as our knowledge base, let's review key parts of this "setting the record straight" post, and then do the same for your original post about your new privacy statement.(NOTE: For added clarity, long quotes from your blog are denoted by """ before and after each quote.)Let's start with the following two suggestions by you about how users can reduce the loss of privacy..."""If you are logged in, you can still edit or turn off your Search history, switch Gmail chat to "off the record," control the way Google tailors ads to your interests, use Incognito mode on Chrome, or use any of the other privacy tools we offer.""""""Or you could keep your data separate with different accounts -- for example, one for YouTube and another for Gmail."""Google, you know that those folks on the videos are NOT going to do any of that. They do not even know what the above means. I boldened your phrase about ads because you consistently bury it in your messaging. However, many web-savvy commentators in the media believe that your extensive data-gathering is actually all about advertisers paying more for better-targeted ads due to improved click-through (by the folks in the video) and better Conversion Rates.That sounds about right.No one argues your right to make more money. But be fair. Be as upfront as you claim to be instead of burying the issue of ads and your financial benefits. It's part of the transaction you enter into with each user.The average person has no clue that the actual transaction here is the sale of one's privacy in return for using your services, so that you can earn more income. You, though, hide that as much as possible.That is not being "upfront."Continued In Part 3...
Part 7 of 7: Wrapping UpThat's it. It all boils down to..."Don't be evil."Don't skirt the letter of the law as your lawyers have so carefully engineered. Go the what's right, the spirit of the law. Go back to the days when Google was dedicated to "organizing the world's information," not OWNING it.Put up a simple, honest message before each person uses each service for the first time under the new policy.The details of the sample message in Part 6 are not important. It's spirit is...It's clear. It's true opt-in.It's simple. Include dashboards and special tools if you like, but don't emphasize them because most will never use them.Google, THAT type of messaging is upfront and fair, something that all "passerby's" EVERYWHERE deserve.You have every right to "simplify" your privacy practices. You also have the obligation to TRULY set the record straight by making sure EVERYONE understands what "simplification" means.If you take the high road, you won't have to "set the record straight" ever again.All the best,Ken EvoyFounder, SiteSell.com
what about the android operating system? once we are logged in, there is no way log out. are there similar privacy controls for searching and browsing the web from our phones? as much as google wants to "personalize" everything i certainly do not need nor wish to see who among my friends or contacts is searching for what. and i certainly don't want what i'm searching for to show up in others searches. for example what if i do a search for say, wedding rings, and then for some reason my girlfriend also happens to do a search for wedding rings, and then at the top of her search appears the "others who have done similar searches" section and my face is in it, that totally ruins the surprise. thanks google. way to go. when it comes to privacy, opt in is always going to be better than opt out, becuase people can't complain due to the fact that at least they were given the choice.
Sorry, even though Part 4 was successfully posted (confirmed both on the submission page and via e-mail), it did not "make it" into the sequence. I'll post Part 4 as soon as I figure out what went wrong with that post.Blogger is very frustrating if you want to do something of much substance. :-(All the best,Ken
The comments on this blog belong only to the person who posted them. We do, however, reserve the right to remove off-topic or inappropriate comments.