5 ms·

Why does Google have only 3 stars?

by afsina 11y ago

zerocrates 11y ago
https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-government-data-requests-2015#google-report https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-government-data-reques... Edit: (less cheekily) Inform users about government data demands: "...Google does not commit to providing notice after an emergency has ended or a gag has been lifted" Disclose data retention policies: "Google publishes some information about log data and deleted data, but it is not complete and representative of all its services and thus does not qualify for a star."
learnstats2 11y ago
Particularly since I recall that Google had six stars last year. Has Google gotten so much worse in the last year? Or has it perhaps stopped funding the EFF? Edited to add citation: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/14/assange_bollocks_google_eff/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/14/assange_bollocks_goo...
- magicalist 11y ago
  This is covered quite well (multiple times) by the article. The categories are not the same as last year.
  - learnstats2 11y ago
    I agree that the changes are covered, but I disagree that they are covered well. The following companies have gone from at least one star below Google to at least one star above Google, on a 4-6 star rating system, in the last year: Adobe, LinkedIn, Wickr, Wikimedia, Wordpress. despite no company materially changing their terms in that time. How is this a robust or meaningful measure, in that case? The exceptionally large variation is not addressed. Why has this happened? In my opinion, it's because the 2014 report is bogus (two of the categories are "published a report"), and most probably it was just permitted to be bogus because Google were heavily funding the EFF in 2014.
    - npizzolato 11y ago
      Three of the stars last year -- "requires a warrant", "publishes transparency reports", and "publishes law enforcement guidelines" -- were merged into a single star "follows industry best practices". According to the report, a company has to do all three of those things to qualify. It's perfectly reasonable for the EFF to evolve how they're rating companies as the years go on. After all, the privacy landscape changes and they're trying to push companies to making some changes. That explains the drop in stars. According to the EFF, Google is doing things that are now considered standard, and they're no longer on the forefront of defending privacy. Your accusations of bias because Google isn't funding the EFF are, frankly, ridiculous.
      - learnstats2 11y ago
        >Three of the stars last year were merged If that were the only major difference, Google would still have 4 stars with the 5th undecided. Google now have 3 stars. >Your accusations of bias because Google isn't funding the EFF are, frankly, ridiculous. To be clear, I am not accusing EFF of bias against Google. Other privacy organisations have literally accused the EFF of lobbying for Google. From Wikipedia: "In 2011, the EFF received $1 million from Google as part of a settlement of a class action related to privacy issues involving Google Buzz. EPIC and seven other privacy-focused nonprofits protested that that the plaintiffs lawyers and Google had, in effect, arranged to give the majority of those funds "to organizations that are currently paid by Google to lobby for or to consult for the company."" Since then, the EFF spoke up loudly against the right to be forgotten (Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González), even though this is considered a privacy basic by EU data protection principles.
    - magicalist 11y ago
      > despite no company materially changing their terms in that time Yes, because, again, the test criteria themselves changed. I'd suggest your focus on a two-data-point trend and google (at the exclusion of every other company on this list) may just be revealing your own bias rather than the EFF's. > it's because the 2014 report is bogus (two of the categories are "published a report") again, I'd suggest actually reading the report. Several of the categories this year also only require a single line in a privacy policy. That's all this report has ever been -- some disclosures, but in many cases, just flat out statements that something will be done with no actual verification that it will be (since in many cases that's not conclusively possible).
DanBC 11y ago
Look at pages like DataSaver. https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2392284?p=mobile_bandwidth&hl=en-GB# https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2392284?p=mobile_ba... There's nothing there about privacy considerations. It'd be great if Google started letting users know of there are (or aren't) privacy implications.

Why does Google have only 3 stars?

by afsina 11y ago

Why does Google have only 3 stars?

https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-government-data-requests-2015#google-report https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-government-data-reques... Edit: (less cheekily) Inform users about government data demands: "...Google does not commit to providing notice after an emergency has ended or a gag has been lifted" Disclose data retention policies: "Google publishes some information about log data and deleted data, but it is not complete and representative of all its services and thus does not qualify for a star."

learnstats2 11y ago

Particularly since I recall that Google had six stars last year. Has Google gotten so much worse in the last year? Or has it perhaps stopped funding the EFF? Edited to add citation: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/14/assange_bollocks_google_eff/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/14/assange_bollocks_goo...

magicalist 11y ago
This is covered quite well (multiple times) by the article. The categories are not the same as last year.
- learnstats2 11y ago
  I agree that the changes are covered, but I disagree that they are covered well. The following companies have gone from at least one star below Google to at least one star above Google, on a 4-6 star rating system, in the last year: Adobe, LinkedIn, Wickr, Wikimedia, Wordpress. despite no company materially changing their terms in that time. How is this a robust or meaningful measure, in that case? The exceptionally large variation is not addressed. Why has this happened? In my opinion, it's because the 2014 report is bogus (two of the categories are "published a report"), and most probably it was just permitted to be bogus because Google were heavily funding the EFF in 2014.
  - npizzolato 11y ago
    Three of the stars last year -- "requires a warrant", "publishes transparency reports", and "publishes law enforcement guidelines" -- were merged into a single star "follows industry best practices". According to the report, a company has to do all three of those things to qualify. It's perfectly reasonable for the EFF to evolve how they're rating companies as the years go on. After all, the privacy landscape changes and they're trying to push companies to making some changes. That explains the drop in stars. According to the EFF, Google is doing things that are now considered standard, and they're no longer on the forefront of defending privacy. Your accusations of bias because Google isn't funding the EFF are, frankly, ridiculous.
    - learnstats2 11y ago
      >Three of the stars last year were merged If that were the only major difference, Google would still have 4 stars with the 5th undecided. Google now have 3 stars. >Your accusations of bias because Google isn't funding the EFF are, frankly, ridiculous. To be clear, I am not accusing EFF of bias against Google. Other privacy organisations have literally accused the EFF of lobbying for Google. From Wikipedia: "In 2011, the EFF received $1 million from Google as part of a settlement of a class action related to privacy issues involving Google Buzz. EPIC and seven other privacy-focused nonprofits protested that that the plaintiffs lawyers and Google had, in effect, arranged to give the majority of those funds "to organizations that are currently paid by Google to lobby for or to consult for the company."" Since then, the EFF spoke up loudly against the right to be forgotten (Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González), even though this is considered a privacy basic by EU data protection principles.
  - magicalist 11y ago
    > despite no company materially changing their terms in that time Yes, because, again, the test criteria themselves changed. I'd suggest your focus on a two-data-point trend and google (at the exclusion of every other company on this list) may just be revealing your own bias rather than the EFF's. > it's because the 2014 report is bogus (two of the categories are "published a report") again, I'd suggest actually reading the report. Several of the categories this year also only require a single line in a privacy policy. That's all this report has ever been -- some disclosures, but in many cases, just flat out statements that something will be done with no actual verification that it will be (since in many cases that's not conclusively possible).

DanBC 11y ago

Look at pages like DataSaver. https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2392284?p=mobile_bandwidth&hl=en-GB# https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2392284?p=mobile_ba... There's nothing there about privacy considerations. It'd be great if Google started letting users know of there are (or aren't) privacy implications.