7 ms·

The article seems to imply that this is a recent addition to the privacy policy. Google keeps archived versions of their privacy policies (https://www.google.de

• jsprogrammer 10y ago
  According to that diff, Google moved from opt-in sharing of DoubleClick cookies, to...potentially default-in, with a possible opt-out option buried in some unidentified settings page?
  • gcb0 10y ago
    gotta love the double standard. when verizon did their super cokie, everyone went crazy (as they should). now that its google (doing that since before verizon it seems) the top coment is a googler throwing the issue to the side in a hitchhikers-guide-to-galaxy way ("you should have checked the alpha centaury records in 2012")
    • jsprogrammer 10y ago
      The privacy policy actually says you don't have to check: >Our Privacy Policy may change from time to time. We will not reduce your rights under this Privacy Policy without your explicit consent.
      • gajjanag 10y ago
        All fine, but it is left conveniently unspecified what is meant by "reduce your rights". In fact, I don't even know my rights as I was not explicitly presented them in the form of a list in the first place, making the "reduction" ambiguous. Admittedly it is not as easy to spin this as a more explicit ToS, but I am sure that with a sufficient number of legal experts, this has considerable leeway in terms of interpretation.
        • jsprogrammer 10y ago
          Yes, it doesn't appear users have any explicit rights under the policy.
        • Natanael_L 10y ago
          On the other hand, if a court found them to have violated their own policy of not reducing rights without notification then they could get heavily fined.
      • gcb0 10y ago
        Obviously my rigth to privacy is not part of my rights under this privacy policy. because they did change that, according to this very thread. With nice diffs and all.
    • magicalist 10y ago
      > when verizon did their super cokie, everyone went crazy (as they should). now that its google... to be fair, one was a thing that happened, the other is a "by my reading of the ToS, they could do this"
      • 10y ago
  • kyrra 10y ago
    My guess this may be related to personalized ads that you can configure here: https://www.google.com/ads/preferences https://www.google.com/ads/preferences You can control a lot of what you see from that page (which has been around for at least 6 years).
  • guelo 10y ago
    To disable it on Android go to: Settings -> Google -> Ads -> Opt out of interest-based ads But the surprise twist is that Apple does the same thing! To disable it on iPhones go to: Settings -> Privacy -> Advertising -> Limit Ad
    • LeoPanthera 10y ago
      That setting on iOS refers to iAd, a service that died because it respected your privacy too much, and was therefore not appealing to advertisers. It seems unfair to compare Apple and Google on user privacy. They are poles apart.
      • sangnoir 10y ago
        > That setting on iOS refers to iAd, a service that died because it respected your privacy too much That is absurd revisionism: iAd died because Apple stipulated a minimum ad spend of $1 million. They later dropped the minimum spend to $50, but the damage was already done and the platform was in a death-spiral. iAd died because Apple unsuccessful tried to capture the 'premium' end of the Ad Market, not because it "respected user privacy too much".
        • LeoPanthera 10y ago
          I stand by what I said. Citation: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-privacy-insight-idUSKCN0WN0BO http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-privacy-i...
          • themartorana 10y ago
            "Apple is loathe to use customer data to deliver targeted advertising or personalized recommendations..." ...is false. They are loathe to allow anyone else access to it, and sold ads as many exchanges (like Facebook) do - not sharing user info, but promising they can target the demographic you want with precision. And just to drive home the point, they will still be using targeted data when they start showing App Store ads in iOS 10. If you think there is no targeting there, you're hiding your head in the sand. My theory goes like this - Apple gets to still advertise, lose its full iAd sales team, has a captive audience and ad platform and so can set pricing however they want, use native (better) ads instead of banner (worse and dying) ads, and so on.
• mtgx 10y ago
  The problem is that at the time they added a lot of "vague language" that maybe allowed them to do this, or didn't. But because Google may not be doing a certain collection of data then, it means journalists can't really attack Google for it, because everyone would point out that "it's just vague like that for legal reasons, but Google wouldn't actually do that." So whoever suggests they would do it gets shut down pretty quickly because he or she has no proof Google is doing that right then. But then a couple of years later they turn on that data collection without anyone realizing, and it may take a few years before some do. This happened with Microsoft do. When it was suggested that Microsoft can collect every key stroke because that's what their privacy policy says, most said "but that's crazy! Microsoft wouldn't actually do that" (even if that's what the policy says it can do). But the reality this we'd have no idea if Microsoft does indeed do that, maybe not for advertising purposes, but for law enforcement purposes (especially since half of the requests come with gag orders now, as Microsoft recently said when it launched the lawsuit against DoJ). The default understanding of a privacy policy should be "if the policy allows something, then we should assume the company is doing exactly that." No other understand makes sense in practice.
• x0x0 10y ago
  Yeah, it was so well announced that multiple HN readers -- including me -- who strongly tend towards the privacy sensitive are shocked that they're doing it.
  • delroth 10y ago
    I'm just quoting the EFF's opinion really: > They did a great job of informing users that the privacy policy had been changed through emails and notifications
    • x0x0 10y ago
      That's about the only positive statement on that page. Here's context. The title: What Actually Changed in Google’s Privacy Policy It Shouldn't Take a Letter from Congress for Google to Give Straight Answers About Privacy Policy Changes and the sentence after the one you quoted Unfortunately, while the policy might be easier to understand, Google did a less impressive job of publicly explaining what in the policy had actually been changed. In fact, it took a letter from eight Representatives to persuade them to provide straightforward answers to the public about their new policy. and again Unfortunately, Google’s original explanation left much to be desired. The policy’s overview page said nothing about the substantive changes that were occurring in the policy, and the FAQ was equally vague: So yes, maybe Google notified people. But unless you view reading a large document written by lawyers as somehow pointing out that Google is now collecting the same data the NSA worked so hard to get their hands on -- the call logs of every android user -- that's nothing like notification. Here's notification as written by someone who actually wants to notify rather than do the minimum possible to cover their ass while simultaneously obscuring what they actually collect: We will now record and store every phone number you call. This goes a long way towards explaining why people trust Apple and distrust Google. ps -- under substantial changes, nothing about telephony. So apparently the eff didn't see or didn't understand the change either.
  • 794CD01 10y ago
    All that says is that privacy-sensitive people are out of touch with reality.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• retox 10y ago
  This account belongs to a Google eng.
  • KirinDave 10y ago
    So what? He stated that, noted the sources for what he said. Genetic fallacy is a tired thing.