Is Google's Privacy Policy Evil? - Comments Page 1

EXCELLENT article Bob. I agree completely and you articulated it so well. Thanks...

Try http://donttrack.us/ and see if you feel the same way...

Bob, you're absolutely right. Take the ads away, and there's no more Google. Same as on your TV : take the ads away and there's nothing what was inbetween 'em anymore either ! *s*
e.g. What would a software developper/company ask for a program like Google Earth ? What was the prize of a good (e.g. Route 66) route map ? With streetviews ? I remember the days that I had to PAY for a more or less decent search engine !
+ When I HAVE to see commercials, please lettem be about something that interests me. Not like on TV. There I probably have to "swallow" hundred or more (for me) absolutely useless ads before I see one that MIGHT be in the line of my interests.
Thanks Google. You deserve to make a buck !

I, too, read the entire policy, and I agree with you. It seems those who are complaining don't "get it." What do they have against targeted ads? Some people, it seems, love to complain - whether or not they understand what they are complaining about. As you say, if they don't want this information collected about them, they do not have to use any of Google's services.

Dan

I agree wholeheartedly!

I appreciate that Google refined the policy and then made sure I looked at it. As far as I'm concerned, at least we know what they're doing, and it's a price we must pay.

On you article about Google's privacy policy, I do have one question. You suggested not logging in if you don't want Google to know what you are doing, but a recent experience makes me question that. It doesn't involve Google but goes go to the same point. One evening I looked at shoes on Shoebuy.com where I am not registered and Zappos.com where I do have an account, but didn't login.. A few mnutes I went to Weather Underground, where I am not registered, to check the forecast and there were ads from Shoebuy and Zapppos containing the very shoes I had just looked at and added to the baskets, although I did not complete the purchases at that time. It was a little disconcerting. I wondered how that connection had happened. No, no harm was done and I understand everybody is out to make money, but it still left me feeling a little uneasy. There doesn't seem to be any protection. I don't happen to have anything to hide - I'm pretty open and out there, but people with a strong sense of personal privacy probably really do struggle with this kind of experience. Thanks for listening.

I have had no issues about ads being shown, when in fact I am utilizing a well-done free service, actually a number of services, that the ads pay for. There is only one ad I blocked (Volusion) because it was continually slamming competitors that I had great respect for, in a very negative way. That's just wrong, and I didn't want to see it. Otherwise, yes, I happily click on the occasional ad that interests and sometimes benefits me in my work.

I agree completely. I also read the entire privacy policy and whereas it is a bit different its not all that drastic. I'll continue to use Google but will keep an eye out for the Men In Black. :)

Have any of you freaked-out people ever thought about the database that Walmart maintains? They know what you eat, shoe size,entertainment preferences and a hell of a lot more and your worried about Google.

Kim Komando has a weekly syndicated radio show and also sends out newsletters. This topic also came up and she explained pretty much the same thing that Bob has. This is just taking Google's privacy policies and putting them in one place. There's no drastic changes to anyone's privacy. And for heaven's sake...Google is a for profit company, so if they make a change which doesn't really negatively affect our privacy in order to make more money....that's what the stockholders want. So if you have some money to invest, now you know where else to put it ;-)

I find it fascinating that "Privacy Policy" is *still* interpreted as "how we will keep your information private." I've always read it as a "Non-Privacy Policy", i.e., the things the vendor has no intention of keeping private.

This is also one of the reasons why I have three browsers. I log in to an account on one, do searches or other things on another browser when I don't want the account to track them. The other main reason is that InternetExploder does, Firefox is still a CPU hog, and some forms and some AJAX don't work well on Chrome.

Thank you for your insights. I was confused due to all of the publicity. Personally, I agree with your analysis and respect that Google is making such efforts to "let us all know" in succinct, readable language.

Dear Bob,
I couldn't agree more. I love Gmail and Picasa and am not about to give them up. Thanks much for keeping us informed.
Nezzar

I agree totally. I love my Gmail.

I guess if someone is so paranoid about someone or something watching then, they should get rid of the computer. What are they doing that makes them afraid of others?

I really like your comments. I even understand most of your articles. LOL

Anyone who wants absolute anonymity on the web need only to download "Ultrasurf", and use it. Google Ultrasurf and go to their site and you'll find a bunch of "weird" stuff, but if you go to the bottom and click on the "About" link, you'll find their page about Ultrasurf. There isn't much information, but there is all you really need. It does make your surfing noticeably slower, as you are going through Ultrasurf's secure servers, where everything is encrypted. It's not the only way, but it is very simple, and works.

But that's only if you care all that much about privacy.

Recently I have noticed that everytime I go to Google to search, a window pops up asking me if I want only secure websites shown. Since I want them all, I answer no. This is an extra delay in my search which I do not appreciate.

I am not technical, to be honest I doubt if I have ever read word for word any terms and conditions. I had been wondering about Google's new condensed rules but now that Bob is very relaxed about it I shall just go along with it. If it turns out a disaster I will blame myself and Google, NOT Bob.

I'm happy to have read this article and other's comments. I've been following Bob Rankin for years - yes - back to the text only verson of Tourbus! So, bottom line:

If it's good enough for Bob, it's good enough for me.

The ones having trouble with this new policy are Googles competition they would love to stop Google from giving away all there services for free rather than have to compete head to head.

Not withstanding the for-profit aspects this article has raised, with which I am in complete agreement, and at the risk of being flamed and having a tinfoil hat thrust upon my head, I would like to point out that Google and Microsoft have given personal data to the federal government under the Patriot Act and are in trouble in Europe at this moment over that action as it pertains to European citizens. The government doesn't need my personal data and I don't need to have the government determine my patriotism. If the soon to be amalgamated data about me were to be used solely by Google to further their profits, I wouldn't mind the new policy. But to have that data neatly collected for the use of the government to sift through (as they now "sift" through our clothing at airports with body scanners to view our naked bodies) I find abhorrent. I would like to thank Dadwhiskers for suggesting Ultrasurf. I'm going to give them a look-see.