3 ms·

No way in heck Google is turning your personal information into revenue? Color me absolutely flabbergasted.

TylerE 3y ago
Because that's not what's happening. FTA: "Once regulatory approvals are obtained and the transaction closes, the billing and support services for Google Workspace (including G Suite) subscriptions currently billed by Google Domains will be managed by Squarespace."
- teraflop 3y ago
  It is exactly what's happening. Google is handing over the personal information of its subscribers, and the responsibility for their accounts, to Squarespace. In return, Squarespace is giving Google a bunch of money (revenue).
  - TylerE 3y ago
    The distinction I would draw is that the headline implies this is selling it for marketing purposes, not subcontracting for admin/support.
    - teraflop 3y ago
      This is different from subcontracting, though, because Google Domains is being sold in its entirety and will no longer be owned or controlled by Google. Once the data is in Squarespace's hands, what's stopping them from using it for marketing purposes? The customer data obviously has marketing value. Google's announcement says that after the "transition" is complete, customer data will be handled subject to Squarespace's privacy policy, which (naturally) gives Squarespace permission to use it for marketing.
      - MAGZine 3y ago
        does selling a business release the business from it's contractual obligations (including EULA/data privacy+processing) to its customers?
        wmf 3y ago
        The problem is that in the US there are very few such obligations in the first place. Most privacy policies say that the company can change the policy at any time. Just change your policy to allow the spinoff and thus the spinoff is compliant with your policy.
reaperducer 3y ago
No way in heck Google is turning your personal information into revenue? Color me absolutely flabbergasted. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 483 times, shame on me.
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  Can you give an example of Google selling the contents of personal information, rather than the use of it? That's the big deal here. Google has previously sold information like "show an ad to people who own domains" but not "give me an email list of people who own domains"
- hardware2win 3y ago
  Using for profit =/= selling
- jholman 3y ago
  This is totally wrong. Google has over and over and over again collected as much information as possible about users, and then guarded it zealously against others (while profiting by exploiting it). This is unequivocally different from collecting information and then giving it to others, which is what will happen as part of this sale. I can't say with confidence that this is the first time that Google has sold personal information to a third party, but I'm not aware of any other cases, and certainly doing so has not been their traditional modus operandi. My experience at Google (not recently) was that Google is/was so zealous about properly siloing and guarding PII that it was at times an obstacle to preventing criminals from defrauding Google for large sums of money. Never mind selling it to third parties, but in some instances teams would require high-level (director-level?) sign-off to let other teams (e.g. anti-fraud) see the information they'd collected. I cannot say if this is typical, but I saw it happen more than once. That is a pretty privacy-focused company. Google is also zealous, though law-abiding, about pushing back on the government demanding information about users. That doesn't mean that the government never wins (so think twice about giving Google information that will get you in trouble with the government), but it's in stark contrast with the "welcome to Room 641A, yeah sure wiretap all our users" attitude of the telcos. Everybody talks like PRISM was the fault of "the tech companies", but that's literally backwards. So, is this sale-of-personal-information an absolute first? As far as I know yes, but maybe not. But it's definitely not business-as-usual for Google.
wmf 3y ago
This discussion would probably be improved by being specific about what information will be transferred instead of saying "personal information".

Because that's not what's happening. FTA: "Once regulatory approvals are obtained and the transaction closes, the billing and support services for Google Workspace (including G Suite) subscriptions currently billed by Google Domains will be managed by Squarespace."

teraflop 3y ago
It is exactly what's happening. Google is handing over the personal information of its subscribers, and the responsibility for their accounts, to Squarespace. In return, Squarespace is giving Google a bunch of money (revenue).
- TylerE 3y ago
  The distinction I would draw is that the headline implies this is selling it for marketing purposes, not subcontracting for admin/support.
  - teraflop 3y ago
    This is different from subcontracting, though, because Google Domains is being sold in its entirety and will no longer be owned or controlled by Google. Once the data is in Squarespace's hands, what's stopping them from using it for marketing purposes? The customer data obviously has marketing value. Google's announcement says that after the "transition" is complete, customer data will be handled subject to Squarespace's privacy policy, which (naturally) gives Squarespace permission to use it for marketing.
    - MAGZine 3y ago
      does selling a business release the business from it's contractual obligations (including EULA/data privacy+processing) to its customers?
      - wmf 3y ago
        The problem is that in the US there are very few such obligations in the first place. Most privacy policies say that the company can change the policy at any time. Just change your policy to allow the spinoff and thus the spinoff is compliant with your policy.

reaperducer 3y ago

No way in heck Google is turning your personal information into revenue? Color me absolutely flabbergasted. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 483 times, shame on me.

iudqnolq 3y ago
Can you give an example of Google selling the contents of personal information, rather than the use of it? That's the big deal here. Google has previously sold information like "show an ad to people who own domains" but not "give me an email list of people who own domains"
hardware2win 3y ago
Using for profit =/= selling
jholman 3y ago
This is totally wrong. Google has over and over and over again collected as much information as possible about users, and then guarded it zealously against others (while profiting by exploiting it). This is unequivocally different from collecting information and then giving it to others, which is what will happen as part of this sale. I can't say with confidence that this is the first time that Google has sold personal information to a third party, but I'm not aware of any other cases, and certainly doing so has not been their traditional modus operandi. My experience at Google (not recently) was that Google is/was so zealous about properly siloing and guarding PII that it was at times an obstacle to preventing criminals from defrauding Google for large sums of money. Never mind selling it to third parties, but in some instances teams would require high-level (director-level?) sign-off to let other teams (e.g. anti-fraud) see the information they'd collected. I cannot say if this is typical, but I saw it happen more than once. That is a pretty privacy-focused company. Google is also zealous, though law-abiding, about pushing back on the government demanding information about users. That doesn't mean that the government never wins (so think twice about giving Google information that will get you in trouble with the government), but it's in stark contrast with the "welcome to Room 641A, yeah sure wiretap all our users" attitude of the telcos. Everybody talks like PRISM was the fault of "the tech companies", but that's literally backwards. So, is this sale-of-personal-information an absolute first? As far as I know yes, but maybe not. But it's definitely not business-as-usual for Google.

wmf 3y ago

This discussion would probably be improved by being specific about what information will be transferred instead of saying "personal information".