3 ms·

As usual with Scripting News, the comments are of more value than the story. No, it's not a "fact" that they exposed the private data of millions ... At most, i

by bonaldi 17y ago

As usual with Scripting News, the comments are of more value than the story. No, it's not a "fact" that they exposed the private data of millions ... At most, it's a fact that they casually handed a privacy-invading gun to people and invited them to fire it. Nothing was exposed to the public unless you agreed to create your Buzz profile. Nothing is exposed to followers unless you post something. Nothing is shared from your Reader unless it was already set to public. So, you know, if you're a doctor or someone else who values the confidentiality of your user list very highly, don't go blithely clicking "Yes" when Google asks you if you want to make a public something-or-other. And if you could be physically put in danger by your correspondents, don't make comments like "ooh, this will be handy for my new house, its address is 123 xyz St" in public comments on your shared items. Google didn't make a CEO-apology-level mistake here; they acted reasonably, if a bit cavalierly, and a lot of people had a hysterical and irrational freak-out, and a lot of those who are anti-Google picked it up as a stick to beat them with. I don't know when their image changed so much. Perhaps it was the string of weird and useless launches recently. Wave must have cost them more reputation than I thought. But, really, I think their apology was fine. They should be sorry for causing concern. I don't see how much further they could go. "we're sorry for not making it completely safe for you to click 'Yes' on any box we present to you without any consequences at all. We agree that you should never, ever have to read anything. Oh, and you can log in to Facebook here, and finally we pledge to protect your security-by-obscurity whenever you mark something 'public'. Love, Google."

eagleal 17y ago
> they casually handed a privacy-invading gun to people and invited them to fire it They didn't invite them to fire, they forced them to fire. It's quite different.
- bonaldi 17y ago
  No, they didn't. People think that the "want to find out more?" screen was the opt-in point, but it wasn't. The opt-in point was when you made your first Buzz post, when you were told this meant creating a public Google profile. There are millions of gmail users who haven't done this, and consequently have no public profile, and no information exposed. Users were not forced into anything. Buzz is there and inviting, sure, but I read the screen and was well aware of what would happen. (Compare Facebook, which did recently force its users into publicising their names, small profile image and contacts list, with nary a whimper. It was a much more complicated opt-out box, too)
  - orangecat 17y ago
    It was not at all obvious that "create a public profile" was equivalent to "make public the people who I frequently email". Certainly it's much more complex than telling the difference between ReadWriteWeb and Facebook, in which case there was a great deal of sympathy for the clueless users.
    - bonaldi 17y ago
      Yes, and I think Google was too cavalier in how they flagged that up -- the current revisions are much better. But nonetheless, it doesn't mean they forced people's data public, and it doesn't mean the NYT should have reported that as fact, as Winer demands. It's more nuanced than that, and only hit-seeking shouty tech blogs are saying otherwise. It'd be a disservice to their readers and the truth for the NYT to take their piece to the same histronic level as this link.

by bonaldi 17y ago

eagleal 17y ago

> they casually handed a privacy-invading gun to people and invited them to fire it They didn't invite them to fire, they forced them to fire. It's quite different.

bonaldi 17y ago
No, they didn't. People think that the "want to find out more?" screen was the opt-in point, but it wasn't. The opt-in point was when you made your first Buzz post, when you were told this meant creating a public Google profile. There are millions of gmail users who haven't done this, and consequently have no public profile, and no information exposed. Users were not forced into anything. Buzz is there and inviting, sure, but I read the screen and was well aware of what would happen. (Compare Facebook, which did recently force its users into publicising their names, small profile image and contacts list, with nary a whimper. It was a much more complicated opt-out box, too)
- orangecat 17y ago
  It was not at all obvious that "create a public profile" was equivalent to "make public the people who I frequently email". Certainly it's much more complex than telling the difference between ReadWriteWeb and Facebook, in which case there was a great deal of sympathy for the clueless users.
  - bonaldi 17y ago
    Yes, and I think Google was too cavalier in how they flagged that up -- the current revisions are much better. But nonetheless, it doesn't mean they forced people's data public, and it doesn't mean the NYT should have reported that as fact, as Winer demands. It's more nuanced than that, and only hit-seeking shouty tech blogs are saying otherwise. It'd be a disservice to their readers and the truth for the NYT to take their piece to the same histronic level as this link.