4 ms·

What's interesting to me about this submission is that the author believes this policy document contains a "promise" https://policies.google.com/terms/informat

What's interesting to me about this submission is that the author believes this policy document contains a "promise" https://policies.google.com/terms/information-requests?hl=en-US https://policies.google.com/terms/information-requests?hl=en... I cannot find any promises in that document nor would I expect to find any. It's a policy not an agreement At best, the policy contains "representations" The author might claim he was deceived by misrepresentations, and this deception had consequences for him, amounting to measurable harm But proving these statements about Google's internal operations are false is difficult. Proving Google's intent in making them is even more difficult It's incorrect to interpret a "policy" comprising statements about what Google allegedly does internally as an agreement to do anything in the future Promises can be enforced through the legal process. Generally, Silicon Valley's so-called "tech" companies do not make "promises" to users that can be enforced. Imagine what would happen if they did

rectang 7mo ago
Sounds like promises are worthless and only capabilities matter.
1vuio0pswjnm7 7mo ago
"Google promises that it will notify users before their data is handed over in response to legal processes, including administrative subpoenas." Where? The policy does not contain the word "will" and makes no reference to what Google will (cf. "may") do in the future The policy is comprised of statements about what Google has done in the past The claims here are for deceptive trade practices, not breach of agreement (enforceable promise) Google could agree, i.e., promise, to notify. It does not. Readers should ask themselves why Instead Google states it typically notifies, i.e., has notified in the past, or may notify under certain circumstances No doubt Google can show the statements in the policy are true at least some of the time. It is just disclosing what it has sometimes done in the past. Nothing in these statements binds it to doing something in the future. It could decide to change its procedures and update the policy at any time. It can also make justifiable exceptions at any time for any reason, irrespective of whatever it has done in the past The "Guest author" of this EFF page should not be surprised when he/she is ignored by the Attorneys General contacted

rectang 7mo ago

Sounds like promises are worthless and only capabilities matter.

1vuio0pswjnm7 7mo ago

"Google promises that it will notify users before their data is handed over in response to legal processes, including administrative subpoenas." Where? The policy does not contain the word "will" and makes no reference to what Google will (cf. "may") do in the future The policy is comprised of statements about what Google has done in the past The claims here are for deceptive trade practices, not breach of agreement (enforceable promise) Google could agree, i.e., promise, to notify. It does not. Readers should ask themselves why Instead Google states it typically notifies, i.e., has notified in the past, or may notify under certain circumstances No doubt Google can show the statements in the policy are true at least some of the time. It is just disclosing what it has sometimes done in the past. Nothing in these statements binds it to doing something in the future. It could decide to change its procedures and update the policy at any time. It can also make justifiable exceptions at any time for any reason, irrespective of whatever it has done in the past The "Guest author" of this EFF page should not be surprised when he/she is ignored by the Attorneys General contacted