4 ms·
I like the fact that they do the diff format. This sentence is now crossed out, and I find that a little frightening: At Google we recognize that privacy is im
by sabat 16y ago
I like the fact that they do the diff format. This sentence is now crossed out, and I find that a little frightening:
At Google we recognize that privacy is important.
- davidcuddeback 16y agoWhen I saw that, I immediately thought it was a joke on someone else's website. Then I looked at the domain, and I too was frightened. Edit: Other than that, I don't see anything alarming in the diffs.
- houseabsolute 16y agoI suspect that it's not that Google's feelings on privacy have changed, it's just that they've opted for brevity over flowery language. Saying "we care about privacy" as an internet company is basically content-free, because everyone does it.
- davidcuddeback 16y agoI suspect you're right, but it doesn't change the impact it had on me to see right there in the diff that they removed it. I'm not going to ditch Google now just because they removed a phrase from their privacy policy.
- startupcomment 16y agoJust because everyone says it does not mean that "we care about privacy" is a meaningless statement. It is a statement of conviction and demonstrates respect and care for its users. We can only imagine why this statement was deleted. On the one hand, Google's privacy policy says "we care about privacy" yet, on the other hand, certain aspects of Google's present business practices and future business plans as well as certain statements of Google's CEO could be construed to suggest the opposite. Probably Google's lawyers recommended removing this statement to avoid having users hold Google to account for possible contradictions between its privacy policy and its business practices.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- blahedo 16y agoThat was precisely my first reaction too. On the other hand, there are a lot of places where the stuff you might call the "whereas" clauses---i.e. why we do this---is also excised; the result is a bit leaner and probably easier to read. So, maybe not too scary. But yeah, that diff was alarming.
- yanw 16y agoPutting it into context: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/trimming-our-privacy-policies.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/trimming-our-privacy-... The policy is still the same, the wording is less "lawyerly".
- lethargus 16y agoMany policies become "lawyerly" to avoid ambiguities and loopholes. What happens when you make it less "lawyerly"?
- houseabsolute 16y agoIt becomes easier for lay-people to understand.
- Andrew_Quentin 16y agoand lawyers to abuse
- houseabsolute 16y agoMeh. The space of bad things google will realistically be able to do before and after the update is basically unchanged.
- Andrew_Quentin 16y agoYou speak as a lawyer or a layman?
- houseabsolute 16y agoMostly as someone who can read. My point is that unless you or anyone can suggest a rational argument against clarifying this policy's language, I'm just not going to worry about it, and I don't think anyone else should either. "Lawyers can exploit it more easily" doesn't work as a rational argument for me. It seems like almost all privacy violations out there happen well within the constraints of privacy policies, or by accident. There's rarely ambiguity in a policy which gets exploited to enable something unexpected. It seems like a really low-concern area that doesn't deserve the kind of FUD I'm seeing in this thread. Especially in the case of a company like Google that could suffer for reversing its public stance on privacy.
- danilocampos 16y agoHalf expected to see it replaced with: "At Google we recognize that revenue is important." edit: Aw, come on! Nah, downvote me, you're right.