3 ms·

"We quickly realized that we didn't get everything quite right. We're very sorry for the concern we've caused and have been working hard ever since to improve t

"We quickly realized that we didn't get everything quite right. We're very sorry for the concern we've caused and have been working hard ever since to improve things based on your feedback" Not the best possible apology (it's closer to "sorry you were concerned" than "sorry for our mistakes"), but not shabby as these things go.

jasonlotito 17y ago
From reading the article though, it was people's concern of things, not Google's disregard for them. The changes basically amount to making things easier to find. Even the Auto Following thing was controllable according to the article. So, as far as they are concerned, they didn't violate privacy as much as make it easy for people to by-pass the privacy protections in place.
- mbrubeck 17y ago
  Both of Google's posts on the issue talk about notification and controls for users whose profile is created when they first use Buzz. But from my experiments, if you were in the minority of users who had already set up a Google profile (which I did in 2007 when they were first announced[1]) then Google started broadcasting information about who you were following before you even knew that you were following them. Adding new privacy controls is not nearly sufficient to protect privacy; you need to notify users about them and let them choose before applying the settings to their account. At least during the first launch (I haven't re-tested with the latest changes), for my test account that already had a profile, this was the experience: (1) As soon as I logged into GMail and saw the Buzz welcome screen and clicked "no thanks," my account began "following" people chosen by Google. (2) This information was broadcast to a group of people chosen by Google. (3) I was not informed that either of these things had happened. (4) New privacy settings were added to my "Edit Profile" screen, but (5) the least-private setting was activated automatically and I was not told yet that the new settings existed until after information about my email contacts was broadcast to other users. I don't think anyone disagrees that there were privacy controls. But it was really a "beware of leopard" situation, at least for accounts in this particular state. The only option for these users to preserve their privacy was for them to (1) magically know that before logging into GMail today, they must edit their profile to be non-public, and (2) magically know that new privacy settings had been activated in their account so they could change them before trying Buzz. Now, I actually like Buzz and am still using it[2]. I think it's a much-needed challenge to Facebook's closed platform. I can see how the Buzz team didn't forsee just how bad this would be for a very small minority of users. But to pretend that all users were given a chance to protect their privacy and just didn't take it is really not true. Some users' privacy was violated the instant they logged in, and giving them tools to help them clean up later (and not telling them about the tools!) does not even remotely help. [1]: http://techcrunch.com/2007/12/15/google-starts-rolling-out-centralized-profiles/ http://techcrunch.com/2007/12/15/google-starts-rolling-out-c... [2]: http://google.com/profiles/mbrubeck http://google.com/profiles/mbrubeck
  - jasonlotito 17y ago
    You make some good points. I won't repeat, or argue, as I agree with most of what you said. My main contention is that there was a lot of reactionaries proclaiming things that simply weren't true and were making grand assumptions. It made for an environment that was difficult to question. At some point, I was told that readers of Hacker News essentially could not be wrong, and that I was wrong for asking questions or disagreeing. Thank you for providing more information. =)

jasonlotito 17y ago

From reading the article though, it was people's concern of things, not Google's disregard for them. The changes basically amount to making things easier to find. Even the Auto Following thing was controllable according to the article. So, as far as they are concerned, they didn't violate privacy as much as make it easy for people to by-pass the privacy protections in place.

mbrubeck 17y ago
Both of Google's posts on the issue talk about notification and controls for users whose profile is created when they first use Buzz. But from my experiments, if you were in the minority of users who had already set up a Google profile (which I did in 2007 when they were first announced[1]) then Google started broadcasting information about who you were following before you even knew that you were following them. Adding new privacy controls is not nearly sufficient to protect privacy; you need to notify users about them and let them choose before applying the settings to their account. At least during the first launch (I haven't re-tested with the latest changes), for my test account that already had a profile, this was the experience: (1) As soon as I logged into GMail and saw the Buzz welcome screen and clicked "no thanks," my account began "following" people chosen by Google. (2) This information was broadcast to a group of people chosen by Google. (3) I was not informed that either of these things had happened. (4) New privacy settings were added to my "Edit Profile" screen, but (5) the least-private setting was activated automatically and I was not told yet that the new settings existed until after information about my email contacts was broadcast to other users. I don't think anyone disagrees that there were privacy controls. But it was really a "beware of leopard" situation, at least for accounts in this particular state. The only option for these users to preserve their privacy was for them to (1) magically know that before logging into GMail today, they must edit their profile to be non-public, and (2) magically know that new privacy settings had been activated in their account so they could change them before trying Buzz. Now, I actually like Buzz and am still using it[2]. I think it's a much-needed challenge to Facebook's closed platform. I can see how the Buzz team didn't forsee just how bad this would be for a very small minority of users. But to pretend that all users were given a chance to protect their privacy and just didn't take it is really not true. Some users' privacy was violated the instant they logged in, and giving them tools to help them clean up later (and not telling them about the tools!) does not even remotely help. [1]: http://techcrunch.com/2007/12/15/google-starts-rolling-out-centralized-profiles/ http://techcrunch.com/2007/12/15/google-starts-rolling-out-c... [2]: http://google.com/profiles/mbrubeck http://google.com/profiles/mbrubeck
- jasonlotito 17y ago
  You make some good points. I won't repeat, or argue, as I agree with most of what you said. My main contention is that there was a lot of reactionaries proclaiming things that simply weren't true and were making grand assumptions. It made for an environment that was difficult to question. At some point, I was told that readers of Hacker News essentially could not be wrong, and that I was wrong for asking questions or disagreeing. Thank you for providing more information. =)