4 ms·

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 le

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).
- learnstats2 11y ago
  > may just be revealing your own bias Maybe. To see a rather clearer example of personal bias, I encourage anyone to read your comment feed to date. You spend your time in these comments defending Google in remarkable depth and breadth. I'm satisfied to accuse you of being a shill. Hope they pay well and all the best to you.
  - sbuk 11y ago
    Wow.
  - dang 11y ago
    Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. Please don't do this again.
    - learnstats2 11y ago
      I will be more civil in future. However, I was responding to the parent's original accusation of personal bias - a clear personal attack. The parent comment further breaks the Hacker News guidelines: "Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article." Can you clarify why my comment was rebuked, but the parent was not, please?
      - 11y ago

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).

learnstats2 11y ago
> may just be revealing your own bias Maybe. To see a rather clearer example of personal bias, I encourage anyone to read your comment feed to date. You spend your time in these comments defending Google in remarkable depth and breadth. I'm satisfied to accuse you of being a shill. Hope they pay well and all the best to you.
- sbuk 11y ago
  Wow.
- dang 11y ago
  Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. Please don't do this again.
  - learnstats2 11y ago
    I will be more civil in future. However, I was responding to the parent's original accusation of personal bias - a clear personal attack. The parent comment further breaks the Hacker News guidelines: "Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article." Can you clarify why my comment was rebuked, but the parent was not, please?
    - 11y ago