Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Privacy

Google Changes Privacy Policy 214

Posted by Zonk from the privacy-under-the-goog dept.
jemecki writes "Yahoo reports that Google has updated their privacy policy on user data collection. The new policy now explicitly states that 'Google may use personal information to display customized content and advertising, develop new services and ensure that its network continues to function.' It also adds that employees who violate the policy will be fired and prosecuted. They have also added a Cliffs Notes version of their privacy policy for those who don't want to RTFPP."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Changes Privacy Policy More

Google Changes Privacy Policy

Comments Filter:

  • privacy smivacy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @12:47PM (#13818785)

    I don't leave my house without my tinfoiled hat firmly in place, but I could care less about privacy policies. Especially those that require my signature. I will probably stop signing those, but I haven't felt like getting into it with the person who cannot see past the point that there is no point in agreeing or signing a "policy" that clearly says "I can change the rules at any time without notifying you".

    Signing something like that is ignorant in my opinion because signing something implies agreement, and agreeing to an openended and potentially radically different terms doesn't seem much like an agreement to me.

    I think that all of us should get together with a lawyer and create our own privacy statement and ask others to sign it, and not the other way around.

    • Re:privacy smivacy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by brxndxn ( 461473 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @12:52PM (#13818844)
      Everything online is forced agreement anyway.. It's probby Google's policy to begin data collection the first time a word is entered into their search..

      "By visiting this site, you agree to everything we want now and everything we will want in the future. This agreement is entirely legally binding because we said so and no one will ever test us on it."

      • Is anyone else getting asked to accept a cookie originating from the site of the top result of a Google search before ever clicking on it?

      • Re:privacy smivacy (Score:3, Insightful)

        by uncoveror ( 570620 )
        The answer here is simple. Use a different search engine.
        • Yahoo, MSN and all other major search engines track visitor information in the same way.

          It's even simpler-- block cookies entirely, or only allow cookies for the session. If you're hardcore, use a session anonymizer like Tor/Privoxy.

          Tracking by IP has severe flaws. Most DSL & Cable users have a Dynamic IP, and a thousand other people have used that Dynamic IP.
          • If you have a DSL or cable connection, unless you're turning it on and off all the time, you likely keep the same IP address for weeks or months. They can do some pretty good tracking with that. And of course they could get together with the ISPs and do an even better job.

      • Cookies (Score:3, Informative)

        by SeaFox ( 739806 )
        Here's something for you to try:

        Set you browser to ask for you approval before accepting cookies, now delete cookies that go with any major copanies you've visited recently.

        Go to google and search for a company name.

        Ex: Type in "microsoft"

        What happens when the results come up?
        You're prompted to accept a cookie from microsoft.com.

        Now, I never even clicked the first link (which is microsoft's homepage).

        Why is it that a company is now allowed to add cookies to my machine (and potentially track my web browsing)
    • entirely agree except for the signing part.

      you cannot sign in cyberspace (at least not without a graphics tablet...).

      puts EULAs into a new perspective, doesn't it?

      software doesn't require a license, regardless of how many software industry shills tell you otherwise. same thing for web sites, but the only difference is that web "software" can change at any time and your data is constantly being transmitted to some database. in that case, they have all the power, even more so when you're under the illusion of
    • That seems to never get addressed.
    • ...signing a "policy" that clearly says "I can change the rules at any time without notifying you".

      This is written, in one form or another, in most employment agreements as well. Basically saying 'We can do whatever we want, when we want, no questions asked.'
      But if you don't sign, you don't get to join/play/use/work.
    • Not to pick nits, but I think the correct term would be "Privacy Schmivacy". A subtle difference, no doubt, but one that makes me feel important.
    • If you could care less, you must care somewhat now. Otherwise you couldn't.

  • Wait... wait (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @12:48PM (#13818791)
    They have a version of their privacy policy written in plain english?

    Isn't that against federal law or something?

  • What if? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What if Google decided to abandon the concept of privacy altogether? The stock price would double, right? With that much information on their hands, it must be darn tempting.

    • Re:What if? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dustmite ( 667870 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @02:45PM (#13819955)
      How is it tempting to perform an action that would chase away half of your users in an ad-based market? Are they tempted to commit suicide? I don't think so. As long as Google do not hold a monopoly in any of their 'markets', there remains a massive incentive for them to keep a consumer-friendly privacy policy. If they did something so stupid as to abandon privacy, the press would have a field day (hell the astroturf-"journalism" world is already pushing "google is evil" every other day already as it is), users would panic, and their shareholders (and advertisers) would follow suit and pull out, leaving their overpriced stock to collapse - Google would be dead.

      With only about a third of the search market, they are nowhere near a monopoly and do not wield much control over the market, if any. There are other search engines that, although not as good as Google, are certainly "good enough".Users could and would quickly flock to alternates. They don't hold a monopoly in any other market either - not blog sites, not online mapping, not free mail services, etc.
      • I don't think most users care about privacy. Why would lamers use kazaa and other spyware ridden products if they did? About half the people I talk to about spyware don't care if someone has their information. They feel its the price for admission onto the internet. Its very sad.
    • This has everything to do with Microsoft promising user data in addition to advertising to all of google's customers. Not about boasting stock prices.

      MS is trying to choke off google's air supply by going after AOL and other advertisers. If you were an advertiser who would you go for?

      Google which will not give you third part info or Microsoft which would? My guess is MS is going to give away free copies of Windows and Office as well and how can google compete agaisnt this?

      Its just what google needs to stay

  • Known for years (Score:5, Informative)

    by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @12:50PM (#13818817) Homepage
    I think Google is simply making their privacy policy a bit more clear. It has been known for years that, at the very least, they log the IP address and search string for every request that hits their servers.

    It might be fun to have a "what has this IP adress searched for?" feature to sift thru the google logs. Then again, it might uncover some scary stuff.

    • Re:Known for years (Score:5, Funny)

      by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @12:56PM (#13818879) Journal
      It might be fun to have a "what has this IP adress searched for?" feature to sift thru the google logs. Then again, it might uncover some scary stuff.

      2001-09-11 20:05:33 EDT [63.161.169.137] "where is dick cheney"
      2001-09-12 09:23:00 EDT [63.161.169.137] "tony blair" +funny +english +dude -gay
      2001-10-03 22:44:11 EDT [63.161.169.137] "where is iraq"
      2001-10-05 12:06:15 EDT [63.161.169.137] "where is texas"

    • Re:Known for years (Score:5, Informative)

      by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) * on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @12:59PM (#13818903) Homepage Journal
      They also use Cookies to create an individual profile for each visitor, and log that information. Google provides personalized services like Gmail, Google Groups, and http://www.google.com/ig [google.com] to further the usefulness for those individual profiles (Visitors are less likely to block cookies, more likely to try to maintain the same login information on different computers).

      I'm not saying this is wrong--- thousands of websites do this same thing. The data is only useful in aggregate anyways-- there aren't many business reasons to look at an individual's browsing habits. There are valid business reasons to look at a GROUP of browsing habits.
      • I'm not saying this is wrong--- thousands of websites do this same thing. The data is only useful in aggregate anyways-- there aren't many business reasons to look at an individual's browsing habits. There are valid business reasons to look at a GROUP of browsing habits.

        If your business is insurance, it makes all kinds of business sense to identify individuals who look up high risk symptoms, for example.
      • there aren't many business reasons to look at an individual's browsing habits.

        Unless you count lobbying -- or, perhaps in a less civilized but more honest term, blackmailing -- a "business interest." Google has enough information to blackmail pretty much anyone worth blackmailing.

        • Or, on the same note, while I am confident 99.9 percent of the people here have done nothing illegal of this severity, but couldn't a lot of innocent searchs be misconstrued if desired? I mean, if ever the gov't decided they didn't like somebody? How hard would it be to find 5 things out of about a million we searched for, and tie them together into something that looks troublesome?
      • http://www.google.com/psearch [google.com] is another example; it keeps a history of all the searches you've made and orders new searches with an emphasis relative to past search patterns.

    • Re:Known for years (Score:4, Informative)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @01:08PM (#13818984)
      It might be fun to have a "what has this IP adress searched for?" feature to sift thru the google logs. Then again, it might uncover some scary stuff.

      If you keep your own webserver logs and the users don't hide their referrer strings (99% of them don't) then you could do that on your own website from the numerous search engines.

      I could only imagine what data large sites can come up with from the information passed during searches. Hell, it absolutely amazes me on my little tiny site and I only get about 100k hits a month.

    • Medical information (Score:3, Interesting)

      by temojen ( 678985 )
      I know I have searched for things that if connected could imply part of my (and my girlfriend's) medical history.

      • Re:Medical information (Score:3, Insightful)

        by harves ( 122617 )
        It's easy to assume that Google can determine your medical history from your searches. But unless you put in " has " they can't tell. Are you searching because you have that medical problem? Or a friend you know has? Or your son or daughter? They can't tell. Even if you search with your name, you're only checking "how many people believe I have ".

        They can work out that you're *interested* in a topic. And they can perhaps guess that you *might* suffer some medical problem. But considering the number of time
        • Really at best they can work out that someone who has access to your ip address (maybe one of thousands of people freeloading your wifi) wanted to search for a given set of search terms.
      • 2004-11-01 16:41:01 EDT [63.161.169.137] "Why does it hurt when I pee?"

  • Rocky Road as opposed to Slippery Slope (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rob_squared ( 821479 ) <<rob> <at> <rob-squared.com>> on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @12:50PM (#13818819)
    Isn't this basically what they were doing anyway? Using gathered data to better target ads? I mean they're walking the fine line now between good and evil. But I prefer honesty and that's what they're giving us in the terms. Now let's sit and watch to see if they "lose" our data like other notable companies have in the past.
    • I mean they're walking the fine line now

      Why do you say "Now"? They've always tracked user behavior, and I've always felt they were upfront about it, but maybe I'm just a fool. Why are they more evil now?

      I was using Google during the Beta phase in 1999. The tracking was more obvious back then-- You held your mouse over a link, and the status bar showed something like "http://database.google.com/?q=www.playboy.com".

  • Still not as bad as... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bhirsch ( 785803 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @12:52PM (#13818841) Homepage
    When I subscribed to the Wall Street Journal and became inundated with investment-related spam almost immediately. I suppose I should learn to RTFPP.

  • Duh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) * on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @12:52PM (#13818845) Homepage Journal
    Why is this a YRO article? When Yahoo or MSN changes their privacy policy, is it covered in Slashdot?

    Google changes their privacy policy to reflect things that YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW.

    They track your usage and produce advertisements based on your usage. Duh. That's their whole business model people-- Google is an Advertising business first, a search engine second.

    Do you really think Google needs 5000 computers to serve a website? NO--- a signifigant number of those computers are for data crunching-- what are people viewing now, what advertisements should we show them? It's called "predictive marketing", it's a more advanced version of those stupid "Direct Marketing" advertisements you get in the mail.

    • Re:Duh? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by slavemowgli ( 585321 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @01:04PM (#13818941) Homepage
      Of course Google doesn't need 5000 computers just to serve a website. But have you ever considered that they might need a lot of computers for their index database? The last figure they gave on their website I recall was on the order of 8.5 billion indexed pages; their appliances [google.com] seem to be able to index about 1 million documents per unit (in the more expensive models), so it's probably not unreasonable to assume that Google itself uses (very roughly!) 8500 computers for that, at least.

      They probably still have a large number of machines dedicated to datamining as well, but don't underestimate the computing power necessary to power a large search engine.
      • You are right, of course.

        I only meant to imply that only SOME of the machines at their massive server farm are actually used as the actual frontend webservers.

        A signifigant number are used for heavier applications, such as indexing or datamining.

    • Do you really think Google needs 5000 computers to serve a website? NO--- a signifigant number of those computers are for data crunching-- what are people viewing now, what advertisements should we show them? It's called "predictive marketing", it's a more advanced version of those stupid "Direct Marketing" advertisements you get in the mail.

      "To serve a web site." Right. A website which just happens to provide access to arguably the largest searchable index of the web available.

      "Do you really think that t

    • Re:Duh? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by oGMo ( 379 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @01:18PM (#13819082)
      Do you really think Google needs 5000 computers to serve a website?

      Um, yes? Google is probably the most-visited site on the internet. Millions of requests per second would be reasonable. I'd be suprised if they were only running off 5000 boxes.

      NO--- a signifigant number of those computers are for data crunching-- what are people viewing now, what advertisements should we show them?

      Actually, I attended a Google presentation awhile back that gave some general information on how requests are handled. Apparently, for each search a user makes, it's processed by around 100 boxes for search results alone.

      Now don't get me wrong, Google collects processes advertising data without question. It's just they also process a huge amount of other data, too. We're not talking about an advertisement company that happens to let you search the web.

  • Uh-oh :) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @12:55PM (#13818868) Journal
    "The new policy now explicitly states that 'Google may use personal information to display customized content and advertising, develop new services and ensure that its network continues to function.'"

    Umm, so if Google is losing money hand-over-foot, it can use 'private' information in any way it chooses if necessary to ensure that its network continues to function? I know, nitpicking and alarmist, but that clause is very vague.

    "It also adds that employees who violate the policy will be fired and prosecuted."

    So, any employees who does not use my personal information will get fired and prosecuted?

    Sheesh! Talk about a demanding workplace!

  • Well, duuuuh. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hal9000(jr) ( 316943 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @12:56PM (#13818877)
    No kidding. They will use information collected about users to target advertising. That is the price you pay to use thier free email service, search service, desktop, etc. As long as they keep that private infomration within google, then fine. Looks like I will be RTFPP tonight.

  • Copyright (Score:5, Funny)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @12:59PM (#13818900) Journal
    "They have also added a Cliffs Notes version of their privacy policy for those who don't want to RTFPP."

    CliffsNotes is a registered trademark of John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Please refer to the abbreviated version as an "Executive Summary" or just a "Summary."

    **This message brought to you by the "Congresspeople for Unending Corporate Profits" committee.**

  • Bye bye Gooooogle (Score:4, Funny)

    by tradjik ( 862898 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @01:02PM (#13818925)
    That's it, I'm uninstalling my Google toolbar in Firefox and deleting the never-ending cookie. Guess I'll start using the dewey decimal system on the internet to look anything up. The internet is indexed properly correct?

  • I knew it! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <spydermann.slash ... com minus distro> on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @01:05PM (#13818955) Homepage Journal
    First, Google Earth. Next, your online privacy! Who knows if they'll be spying on your house to see what kind of products you might want to buy!

    *puts on tinfoil hat (purchased, btw, via google AdSense)*

  • Google complaint department (Score:3, Informative)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @01:05PM (#13818958)
    In case you had a complaint and you didnt want to read the full thing...

    Enforcement

    Google regularly reviews its compliance with this Policy. Please feel free to direct any questions or concerns regarding this Policy or Google's treatment of personal information by contacting us through this web site or by writing to us at Privacy Matters, c/o Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California, 94043, USA. When we receive formal written complaints at this address, it is Google's policy to contact the complaining user regarding his or her concerns. We will cooperate with the appropriate regulatory authorities, including local data protection authorities, to resolve any complaints regarding the transfer of personal data that cannot be resolved between Google and an individual.

    Now, back to reality....

  • If you don't like the terms... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...then don't use their service! I personally don't like how anyone uses cookies (not just Google) so I disable cookies for all but the sites where they are absolutely required. The fact that Google collects IP addresses and browsing times is well within their rights. Its the same as when you go to a coffee shop every day and eventually the employees there come to recognize you and maybe offer a special they think you may like. (Granted, this kind of behavior is rare, but its just an example).

    Just becau
  • Google, and yes, Yahoo and MSN, need to answer at least three crucial questions:

    1) Google admits that your search terms are saved along with your unique cookie ID and your IP address, and a time/date stamp. However, they spin this by suggesting that it's merely part of the normal logging process. The question is this: To what extent does Google parse out and database this information for future reference and easy access?

    2) Does Google have any data retention policies for various types of data, or do they ke

  • Funny... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by I C spots ( 923857 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @01:23PM (#13819130) Homepage
    Some people act like internet sites are the only people collecting personal data. Did you ever use a "Club Card"? Heck, credit card companies have been giving away your personal information for decades based on your spending habits. We shouldn't pick on targeted internet ads like it's a new problem, its just a whole lot cheaper than mass mailing samples of toilet paper to a million people - this way than can target only those that wipe.
  • When applying for a job, will google HR peruse my gmail to make sure I'm the right candidate.

  • in comes the scary music... (Score:4, Funny)

    by CDPatten ( 907182 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @01:39PM (#13819297) Homepage
    Is Google going to become "EVIL"? Could the Media darling status eventually fade away, could the honeymoon pass, and could their stock be held to the same standards as other business (e.g. the dot-bomb model failed for a reason).... What will happen next?

    Oh boy I can't wait to see. By the way, has anyone read the Gator privacy policy lately? Did Google copy a few lines?

    Go ahead, flame me. I'm not trying to troll; it's just my warped sense of humor i guess.

  • "Ensure that its network continues to function" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Council ( 514577 ) <rmunroe AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @01:55PM (#13819453) Homepage
    They will not use your personal information except to "ensure that its network continues to function"

    Haha, what they mean is that if one day they're low on cash, they need some new servers to handle a spike in traffic . . . they're guarenteeing they'll take your personal data and do whatever's necessary to get the money to keep the place running.

  • This is Yahoo, remember (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NickFortune ( 613926 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @01:55PM (#13819463) Homepage Journal
    From TFA:
    The company's new privacy policy, though little changed in substance from one issued 15 months ago, is easier to read and reflects Google's expansion beyond its core search engine business.

    It also describes in greater detail what Google is doing to protect against abuses.

    But it remains remains silent on how long information is kept.

    So just for the hell of it, I had a look at Yahoo's privacy policy [yahoo.com] to see what they said on data retention. Feel free to correct me, but I couldn't find it.

    So in essence: google are still promising not to sell your details; they've clarified their policy against employees selling it on (they're anti-) and they've made the document easier to read. On the minus side, they've failed to provide information that Yahoo! don't provide either. Which seems to be about as evil as Google gets.

    Of course, Yahoo does have a vested interest here. Maybe we should take this with a pinch of salt?

  • If you use the net, you're going to be tracked... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Koil ( 786141 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @02:09PM (#13819608)
    If you want to not use Google services to keep your tinfoil hat pinned tightly to your head, feel free.

    I am not a Google fanboi, but I am pretty positive that most any internet related use is going to identify you and pin some type of information to you.

    Thats just how it is.

    Whether they know your name, address, search history, email content (using online email acct), I am pretty sure that all of this at some point so going to be available to SOMEONE with continued use on the internet.

    Its scary, but I don't see a way around it. I make a pretty good attempt at disguising my usage at home, but when i have an IP address and I go out on to any web site...BAM...right there I have something that can be linked back to me.

    I could go to Bob's CRAZY Search engine and hope that he knows what he is doing, and go to the 12 pages that he has indexed, or I can use Google, which has been upfront with their practices about what they'll use the information for. Someone offered a Google Search > Google News > Google Email traingulation method to try and learn more about you....well, I got news for ya, all of that info can be gained from your ISP, without all the smoke and mirrors, if there are people are so inclinded to get it.

    Joe 6-Pack can't get that information from your ISP, but he can't get it from Google either, and anyone who is serious enough to want to go through the trouble of tracking you that hard, Google isn't going to be their main tool in getting to your ass.

  • Google enshrines an invasive polilcy! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tkjtkj ( 577219 ) <tkjtkj@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @03:37PM (#13820563)
    i sent this to google's 'contact us' link on its new privacy policy page :

    thought others might be interested:

    **** start of email to google:
    With regard to your new 'Privacy Policy' of Oct, 2005, and specificlly regarding this paragraph:

    "If Google becomes involved in a merger, acquisition, or any form of sale of some or all of its assets, we will provide notice before personal information is transferred and becomes subject to a different privacy policy."

    We must take great excption! Your words merely imply that you will "notify" us , not that you will allow any 'opt-out' . You seem to have further enshrined what is a massive threat to the privacy of all citizens.

    Try again, google.
    *** end of email to google

    Please observe that our data is daily being added as a 'marketable asset' of google, vastly increasing its value in any future acquisition/merger/sale of the company!. Nowhere in the Privacy Policy does it say that we can opt-out of having our info given to any new owner! yes , we'd be 'informed' ... after our heads are chopped!

    I find this totally intolerable.

  • Why these never ending non stories about Googles evilness? Wake me up when theyve done something bad. I frankly dont see anything evil about them. Maybe i shouldnt compare them to any other company on the planet and do as some do, compare them to Mother Theresa?

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close