FTC Releases Google Privacy Audit, Blacks Out the Details 57
chicksdaddy writes "Google could tell you about its privacy practices except, well....they're private. That's the conclusion privacy advocates are drawing after the Federal Trade Commission took a black marker to an independent audit of the company's privacy practices before releasing it to the group EPIC in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Security Ledger is reporting that the FTC released a copy of a Price Waterhouse Coopers audit of Google that was mandated as part of a settlement with the FTC over complaints following a 2010 complaint by EPIC over privacy violations in Google Buzz, a now-defunct social networking experiment. However, the agency acceded to Google requests to redact descriptions of the search giant's internal procedures and the design of its privacy program."
An excerpt (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If XXX is just code for sex, then what is Google into? Bestiality and S&M?
Failure to release the info means only one thing (Score:5, Insightful)
We must assume the worse.. that Google's 'privacy practices' are hogwash. You have no privacy with Google. Let them prove otherwise.
Re: (Score:1)
Nice try. National security and corporate policy are slightly different things.
So, sir, back at ya...
Re:Failure to release the info means only one thin (Score:5, Funny)
One is a huge, evil organization that is spying on you with massive server farms, and the other doesn't have nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
failure in the first sentence.
Why would we assume the worst? I don't even understand how that is supposed to be a compelling argument.
You have no privacy with anything - why should that be specific to google?
Oh right, please use the privacy-friendly search engine that uses bing instead, right? /facepalm
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because according to Google's Eric Schmidt "if you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." Google doesn't want us to know about it, so maybe be they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
Re: (Score:1)
Unchecked authority/power/influence (or even the illusion of impunity) will always be abused. That's a proven fact. It's only natural. You can confirm it with any experiment you want. Or you can check the results of the ones that have already been performed. So, we need to put a price on it. The only way to keep it honest is to enclose it in glass. Make every detail public. And it will serve to keep the riff-raff out of desiring any such position. If somebody wants authority, they should be stripped naked (
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds exactly like the typical "Would you rather have Romney do that..." that we keep reading every time someone has a valid criticism against Obama.
You first claim that he doesn't have an argument to assume the worst and later say that there's no privacy anywhere (assuming the worst everywhere?).
Re: (Score:2)
Daiquiris and other various drinks can make for pink vomit... really, anything red.
It's okay - it's Google (Score:2)
I'm sure they'll get a free pass from a good chunk of the community here.
FTC Releases Apple Privacy Audit, Blacks Out... (Score:3)
I suppose that we could say that this is just not really a story of interest. Perhaps, although before you make that argument, do you think that the comment count and moderation would be a little different if the headline had been:
FTC Releases Apple Privacy Aud
privacy is evil (Score:4, Insightful)
3 types of data: Log, Account and ??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting, the report specifies that user data is 1 of 3 types,
- Log data (user activity)
- Account data (Users emails, settings, etc)
- Third type is redacted.. Wonder what it is
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wonder what it is...
Slashdot UID... Don't worry. You're safe
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous Coward's UID is 666.
Re: (Score:2)
They state that they keep account data and that users are allowed to access and delete their account data, yet the part that describes exactly what data they keep is redacted. If I'm able to access all account data, why do they need to redact it? Surely I could just access my account data and find out exactly what was redacted? Surely this redacted part must necessarily be public knowledge?
Re: (Score:2)
The 3rd type is "Naked pics".
Re: (Score:2)
Is log data just access records for certain accounts, or does it include user history (sites browsed collected through GA etc?) If not I'd guess that's what it is.
third type is.. (Score:2)
..access data, for keeping logs on who's tapped that persons private information and for why (fbi, cia..).
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting, the report specifies that user data is 1 of 3 types:
I wonder if it could be something like "derived" or "deduced" data, which is information about the user obtained from other sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, the report specifies that user data is 1 of 3 types,
- Log data (user activity)
- Account data (Users emails, settings, etc)
- Third type is redacted.. Wonder what it is
If I had to take a guess, the third item would be:
$$$ value of user (Past purchases, Purchasing power, Number of years before user dies and becomes worthless, etc.)
Of course, Google wouldn't know for sure when you're going to die. It would just have a rough estimate (with a margin of error of + or - 2 hours).
I've said it before and I'll say it again... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, money well bet? When you use the Google voice features it asks if it can build a database based on your voice so that it responds better to you. You can say no and it will just default to a standard attempt at voice match. Say yes, and it will start learning... like what most voice software does.
Well... (Score:3)
...We can safely assume the blacked-out information would hurt both the government and Google to varying degrees. So now what to do about it?
IMHO, the most effective personal strategy is to simply avoid using Google search and associated services. There ARE other services out there.
https://www.ixquick.com/ [ixquick.com]
For one example of a free service that emphasizes privacy and anonymity.
Deprive both Google and the government of the very data they are collecting that gives them more power. Well, at least until they make it illegal to not reveal data.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if you noticed (try browsing with adblockplus and click "Open Blockable Items"), but Google is almost everywhere on the web in one way or another.
Whether it be via doubleclick, google analytics, or AJAX hosting, Google likely tracks about 90% of the sites you visit, and that's not counting your email to friends on gmail or the phone calls you unknowingly make to or receive from Google Voice subscribers. That's also not counting some of the services (like Chrome without privacy tweaks) that send almost 100% of the pages you visit in order to check for fraud or whatever.
To even attempt to avoid them, you can try using firefox with adblockplus with the EasyPrivacy+EasyList settings, but you still have to tweak it a little (like blocking google analytics and unchecking "Allow some non-intrusive advertising").
I agree, it does take some work. I have a number of privacy/security related extensions installed, use FreeBSD, Tor for many things, changed browser settings in the "about:config", etc.
It all depends on how much effort it's worth to you to not be digitally anal-probed.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
I noticed just this week, that new installations of adblock+ now come with a whitelist of "approved" advertisers. You can turn it off in the configuration. Oh and I just checked my own install had it allowed by default.
Wonder how many users know that they are allowing some ads through.
Re:Hard to avoid Google's tracking (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I came across another sneaky way with which Google is gathering data: Google fonts.
It means Google gets a hit every time a website with a CSS layout using Google fonts because it needs to call the fonts API to get them..
Apples to...? (Score:2)
Not necessarily in any way that indicates something nefarious. Google likely has something at stake in the realm of business trade secrets which are frequently contained in information gathered in regulatory audits and are specifically exempted from FOIA requests.
The government has an interest, too, in business cooperating with regulatory audits, and them becoming an indirect tool of corporate espio
Re: (Score:2)
Other services which have had an external audit, based on the same criteria as the FTC-commissioned audit of Google, of their privacy practices which has been publicly released with no redactions? And, if not, how are they relevant to the immediate story?
How about a service which doesn't collect the data in the first place, so that an audit is redundant?
https://www.ixquick.com/eng/press/ixquick-privacy-gets-better.html [ixquick.com]
If that's not relevant and on-topic then not much is.
Strat
Trust us; we don't trust you. (Score:1)
And how we an "independent audit" be trusted if it can't be vetted. It often occurs that government types enter the carousel of working for private industry after initially learning the ropes of regulation; it also often occurs that "independent audit" companies often create reports that are of benefit
All this seems to confirm (Score:4, Insightful)
...is that the government cares more about Google's privacy than our own.
As an employee of Google, I can say that (Score:2, Funny)
[REDACTED]
It really make me wonder .. (Score:2)
.. what they have to hide ..
Do evil. Google.