>It feels arrogant by Google to take the liberty to even add the possibility to changes customer's settings remotely without them having a say in it. I think t

>It feels arrogant by Google to take the liberty to even add the possibility to changes customer's settings remotely without them having a say in it. I think the issue is a lack of informed consent. Some of the commenters seem to think this isn't a "big deal", since the changes were relatively minor and made to benefit the user. Let's draw from the real world: even if you have zero STDs, and use a condom, it is a serious crime to have sex with someone while they're asleep - because they couldn't give consent. It deeply troubles me that I keep seeing this mentality that there must be "harm" for something like this to be a problem. I saw similar logic used in the article on Google using "anonymized" credit card data - that people's feelings about the matter are invalid, since there's no harm if the data is anonymized. Frankly, the word that comes to mind when I read these articles is not arrogance - it's entitlement. Google feels entitled to do as it pleases, because it feeds it knows better than you.