3 ms·

> protects the confidentiality For their definition of "confidential", which they can change at any time. > certain limited circumstances If they only intend

by pdkl95 11y ago

> protects the confidentiality For their definition of "confidential", which they can change at any time. > certain limited circumstances If they only intended the "required by law" example, they wouldn't use such a broad - and completely undefined - set of circumstances. > guard against external threats Google may have good security practices now, but an continually growing collection of highly-revealing tracking data is a very tempting target for many businesses, governments, etc. If Google (or anybody else) wants to claim that they are protecting your data, they should indemnify the subjects of their spying against any damages those caused by those "external threats".

ThisIs_MyName 11y ago
>they should indemnify the subjects of their spying against any damages those caused by those "external threats" I despise GA as much as the next guy, but you'd have to be pretty crazy to expect any business to provide such a guarantee. Google isn't your insurance company.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  I don't really expect that anyone would make that kind of guarantee; I'm arguing in the style of a proof by contradiction. These businesses shouldn't be making this kind of claim, and they shouldn't be holding onto data beyond what is necessary. Data should be expunged as soon as possible, because then there isn't anything to protect. Businesses are acting like there is no risk in holding personal information. When people complain, they respond with claims that the data is safe. When businesses act like they are secured and that we should trust them, we should be asking them to stand behind those claims. I agree, this is crazy, but businesses really want to make strong claims but not be bound by those claims. An honest business that actually believed in their own promises shouldn't have problem putting those promises into a formal guarantee.
  - ThisIs_MyName 11y ago
    >I don't really expect that anyone would make that kind of guarantee Yet you do seem to expect that guarantee: > An honest business that actually believed in their own promises shouldn't have problem putting those promises into a formal guarantee. You can't use such guarantees to vet businesses because no sane company would meet your requirements!

by pdkl95 11y ago

ThisIs_MyName 11y ago

>they should indemnify the subjects of their spying against any damages those caused by those "external threats" I despise GA as much as the next guy, but you'd have to be pretty crazy to expect any business to provide such a guarantee. Google isn't your insurance company.

pdkl95 11y ago
I don't really expect that anyone would make that kind of guarantee; I'm arguing in the style of a proof by contradiction. These businesses shouldn't be making this kind of claim, and they shouldn't be holding onto data beyond what is necessary. Data should be expunged as soon as possible, because then there isn't anything to protect. Businesses are acting like there is no risk in holding personal information. When people complain, they respond with claims that the data is safe. When businesses act like they are secured and that we should trust them, we should be asking them to stand behind those claims. I agree, this is crazy, but businesses really want to make strong claims but not be bound by those claims. An honest business that actually believed in their own promises shouldn't have problem putting those promises into a formal guarantee.
- ThisIs_MyName 11y ago
  >I don't really expect that anyone would make that kind of guarantee Yet you do seem to expect that guarantee: > An honest business that actually believed in their own promises shouldn't have problem putting those promises into a formal guarantee. You can't use such guarantees to vet businesses because no sane company would meet your requirements!