+ for Google: readers are encouraged to comment, and other readers can view those comments.
- for Microsoft: readers can't comment, they can only mail the blog author, see http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2012/02/01/gone-google-got-concerns-we-have-alternatives.aspx
"We’ve always believed the facts should inform our marketing—and that it’s best to focus on our users rather than negative attacks on other companies."
I'm sorry, but in my opinion, after the Bing clickstream data fiasco Google really have no right in saying this, least of all in response to Microsoft.
@Paul Lefere: To be fair, nor does the official Google blog. (Don't get me wrong, I'd love for both to be, but I'm guessing neither wants to stretch their comment moderating teams too thinly.)
@Pieter: In defense of Google, asking that the privacy policy be 'opt-out' shows a fundemental misunderstanding on what a privacy policy is. It is merely Google describing how they will use your data. It's not an 'agreement' - that's the Terms of Service.
1. Reduce the hurdles (per app privacy) to data sharing within your single sign on ecosystem. 2. Bind (them) with Google+ profile (real names, identifiable consumers) with now unified service policies, click through legal terms. 3. Easier to launch new services/products with this more platform centric model (leveraging common policy, data sharing API (future a la Amazon), accounts, etc). 4. ??????????????????? 5. Profit
The World Economic Forum has been running a major project called 'Re-thinking Personal Data' which is driving new governance models in this space, as well as stimulating new innovative 'personal data services' for individuals. The principle is to see the user as a 'producer' of valuable commercial and social assets (data), rather than just a 'consumer' of services (eg. search or social networking), and then think about structures to enable these assets to be leveraged...by the user, for the user. the approach is to put the user fully in control of how their data is exploited, and create 'trust frameworks' (laws and technologies) to support this. We will be sharing more of the output from this project at the upcoming New Digital Economics event in San Francisco at the end of March: http://bit.ly/xX0HCC. Google and MSFT will be participating among other important players and stakeholders in this space...
Makes me want to become a Luddite. I'm done with the big brother routine from every major communications and Internet company. I have a droid phone from verizon under a two year contract. If I don't agree to this compounded invasion of my privacy, my phone becomes a brick. Is this even legal since I have a two year contract. Shouldn't google have to wait until the end of my contract to change the privacy policy.
I feel sorry for Google especially because most of the media is singularly calling out Google given the fact that most of the stuff that they do are standard practices among major internet based firms. It would be great if somebody did a comparative study of the Privacy policies, Terms of Use and the actual practices of major internet based firms (in terms of the usage tracking techniques used, how data is stored/shared, how much control users of respective services have over their data and tracking, etc.)
With regard to the 'opt out' issue: It is a common industry practice to update 'Terms of Use' with impending changes in business/service conditions. 'Notice of Change' with a reasonable notice period is good enough and people who do not like the new 'terms of use' can quit. 'Terms of Use' aren't product features that one can opt out of. (That kind of service specific 'opt in', 'opt out' feature is already available for various Google products). Terms of Use are tied to the accounts of the account holder. It's a contract to which the account holder is legally agreeing and by its very nature it's 'opt in' (which the user implicitly agrees to if he/she continues to use the account after having been reasonably notified about the change). Obviously, Google (or any firm) cannot be expected to prepare Terms of Use tailored according to the whims of every individual user? Serving a Notice of Change about the updated 'Terms of Use' is the only reasonable way how contracts can be updated by internet based firms serving millions of customers.
In the policy, when you said "Can be deleted" I read "It won't be visible". At the end of the day we (the users) have no real control over our own info.
Wow, really interesting comments. You should all remember that Google provides a "free" service, and You are NOT obligated to use it in any way! Get an iPhone, search Bing, use Mozy... or whatever else. If You feel this insecure about Google, use a service You trust.
Too bad most people will be too stupid to realize the actual facts, and the fact that Google ever so carefully worded these facts to make them legally accurate, but in reality avoid each myth (each of which are mostly true).
"No one reads your email but you. ... as well as show ads that are relevant to you."
How will you show ads relevant to me without knowing what that email contains? How will you measure the success of that ad campaign without capturing my click info to that ad?
You can kid people who don't understand ad server technologies but this statement creates lots of contraversy on its own if you don't disclose the details.
After watching the "Gmail Man" video and reading this blog entry tonight, it's obvious who knows how to do business in a more professional manner.
Microsoft embarrassed themselves once again! They thought they'd prove a point that Google is oh-so-bad by uploading the "Gmail Man" video, but uploaded the video to youtube, a Google product. Talk about putting their foot in their mouth!
What they're doing is senseless and immature, and again, it shows how unprofessional they really are, and even more so day after day, in regards to the Google Privacy Policy.
How can there be any competition? This just pushes me further away from Microsoft, as well as many other people. They look ridiculous!
Google: "[O]ur computers scan messages to ... show ads that are relevant to you."
Again, Microsoft didn't say Google employees read our messages, but Google the company. So what you're saying, Big G, is Microsoft is actually right about you.
Outside of that, I couldn't make heads or tails from the corporate double-speak.
these words i just read are the beginning of the end of the zuckerberg-era...Google has the answer right here...it's also in their company mantra "dont be evil"...facebook cant prove they work honoustly and it even feels rather evil or at least too tricky again and again while Google still is holding nothing back...people need to be made aware of this and the first crack in the facebook empire is made...keep your mantra alive be the peoples safe haven in the end Google
@Hugo: The difference would probably be a slander & libel lawsuit against MSFT if they did say the employees were reading our e-mail. Or if it was true, how many potential breach of contract suits would be filed against GOOG, but IANAL.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe will be having the Microsoft CPO on #PrivChat this Tuesday at Noon ET.
ReplyDeleteJoin us !
Shaun Dakin
I think this latest attack campaign might require a more visible smackdown.
ReplyDeleteAverage people don't read this blog...
I looked at your blog and the one from Microsoft.
ReplyDelete+ for Google: readers are encouraged to comment, and other readers can view those comments.
- for Microsoft: readers can't comment, they can only mail the blog author, see http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2012/02/01/gone-google-got-concerns-we-have-alternatives.aspx
Perhaps its time to spend a little money on lobbyists?
ReplyDeleteI know the system is corrupt but the stakes are high here.
I do use lots of google software, but changing the privacy policy like this should not be allowed. Or leave the option of people to opt-out.
ReplyDeleteI think this will cost google a lot of customers. This has been done to generate more money.
I am to submit a report on this niche your post has been very very helpfull tucson security
ReplyDeleteNicccccccce.
ReplyDelete"We’ve always believed the facts should inform our marketing—and that it’s best to focus on our users rather than negative attacks on other companies."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but in my opinion, after the Bing clickstream data fiasco Google really have no right in saying this, least of all in response to Microsoft.
@Paul Lefere: To be fair, nor does the official Google blog. (Don't get me wrong, I'd love for both to be, but I'm guessing neither wants to stretch their comment moderating teams too thinly.)
@Pieter: In defense of Google, asking that the privacy policy be 'opt-out' shows a fundemental misunderstanding on what a privacy policy is. It is merely Google describing how they will use your data. It's not an 'agreement' - that's the Terms of Service.
Microsft you need to enable comments in your blog because we have some question lol -M +G = G :) <3
ReplyDeleteWhy Microsoft campaigns always consist in trolling competitors and show misleading information? What do Microsoft fear?
ReplyDelete1. Reduce the hurdles (per app privacy) to data sharing within your single sign on ecosystem.
ReplyDelete2. Bind (them) with Google+ profile (real names, identifiable consumers) with now unified service policies, click through legal terms.
3. Easier to launch new services/products with this more platform centric model (leveraging common policy, data sharing API (future a la Amazon), accounts, etc).
4. ???????????????????
5. Profit
The World Economic Forum has been running a major project called 'Re-thinking Personal Data' which is driving new governance models in this space, as well as stimulating new innovative 'personal data services' for individuals. The principle is to see the user as a 'producer' of valuable commercial and social assets (data), rather than just a 'consumer' of services (eg. search or social networking), and then think about structures to enable these assets to be leveraged...by the user, for the user. the approach is to put the user fully in control of how their data is exploited, and create 'trust frameworks' (laws and technologies) to support this. We will be sharing more of the output from this project at the upcoming New Digital Economics event in San Francisco at the end of March: http://bit.ly/xX0HCC. Google and MSFT will be participating among other important players and stakeholders in this space...
ReplyDeleteMakes me want to become a Luddite. I'm done with the big brother routine from every major communications and Internet company.
ReplyDeleteI have a droid phone from verizon under a two year contract. If I don't agree to this compounded invasion of my privacy, my phone becomes a brick. Is this even legal since I have a two year contract. Shouldn't google have to wait until the end of my contract to change the privacy policy.
I feel sorry for Google especially because most of the media is singularly calling out Google given the fact that most of the stuff that they do are standard practices among major internet based firms. It would be great if somebody did a comparative study of the Privacy policies, Terms of Use and the actual practices of major internet based firms (in terms of the usage tracking techniques used, how data is stored/shared, how much control users of respective services have over their data and tracking, etc.)
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the 'opt out' issue: It is a common industry practice to update 'Terms of Use' with impending changes in business/service conditions. 'Notice of Change' with a reasonable notice period is good enough and people who do not like the new 'terms of use' can quit. 'Terms of Use' aren't product features that one can opt out of. (That kind of service specific 'opt in', 'opt out' feature is already available for various Google products). Terms of Use are tied to the accounts of the account holder. It's a contract to which the account holder is legally agreeing and by its very nature it's 'opt in' (which the user implicitly agrees to if he/she continues to use the account after having been reasonably notified about the change). Obviously, Google (or any firm) cannot be expected to prepare Terms of Use tailored according to the whims of every individual user? Serving a Notice of Change about the updated 'Terms of Use' is the only reasonable way how contracts can be updated by internet based firms serving millions of customers.
In the policy, when you said "Can be deleted" I read "It won't be visible". At the end of the day we (the users) have no real control over our own info.
ReplyDeleteWow, really interesting comments. You should all remember that Google provides a "free" service, and You are NOT obligated to use it in any way! Get an iPhone, search Bing, use Mozy... or whatever else. If You feel this insecure about Google, use a service You trust.
ReplyDeleteToo bad most people will be too stupid to realize the actual facts, and the fact that Google ever so carefully worded these facts to make them legally accurate, but in reality avoid each myth (each of which are mostly true).
ReplyDelete"No one reads your email but you. ... as well as show ads that are relevant to you."
ReplyDeleteHow will you show ads relevant to me without knowing what that email contains? How will you measure the success of that ad campaign without capturing my click info to that ad?
You can kid people who don't understand ad server technologies but this statement creates lots of contraversy on its own if you don't disclose the details.
After watching the "Gmail Man" video and reading this blog entry tonight, it's obvious who knows how to do business in a more professional manner.
ReplyDeleteMicrosoft embarrassed themselves once again! They thought they'd prove a point that Google is oh-so-bad by uploading the "Gmail Man" video, but uploaded the video to youtube, a Google product. Talk about putting their foot in their mouth!
What they're doing is senseless and immature, and again, it shows how unprofessional they really are, and even more so day after day, in regards to the Google Privacy Policy.
How can there be any competition?
This just pushes me further away from Microsoft, as well as many other people. They look ridiculous!
Google: "[O]ur computers scan messages to ... show ads that are relevant to you."
ReplyDeleteAgain, Microsoft didn't say Google employees read our messages, but Google the company. So what you're saying, Big G, is Microsoft is actually right about you.
Outside of that, I couldn't make heads or tails from the corporate double-speak.
these words i just read are the beginning of the end of the zuckerberg-era...Google has the answer right here...it's also in their company mantra "dont be evil"...facebook cant prove they work honoustly and it even feels rather evil or at least too tricky again and again while Google still is holding nothing back...people need to be made aware of this and the first crack in the facebook empire is made...keep your mantra alive be the peoples safe haven in the end Google
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJ.D.: "Microsoft didn't say Google employees read our messages, but Google the company."
ReplyDeleteWhat difference does that make in the face of ads like these? : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDbrX5U75dk
@Hugo: The difference would probably be a slander & libel lawsuit against MSFT if they did say the employees were reading our e-mail. Or if it was true, how many potential breach of contract suits would be filed against GOOG, but IANAL.
ReplyDelete