http://techliberation.com/2009/02/12/usa-today-on-androids-privacy-implications/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Sun, 27 May 2012 16:42:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://techliberation.com/2009/02/12/usa-today-on-androids-privacy-implications/comment-page-1/#comment-65466 LM1987 Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:05:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16599#comment-65466 <p>A bit stupid to think that the privacy policy proctects you..thank God there are still people who are not that stupid..<br><br>And the malware argument is also stupid! Should you give up privacy to be protected against malware? I think not but...frightened Americans do everything..</p> A bit stupid to think that the privacy policy proctects you..thank God there are still people who are not that stupid..

And the malware argument is also stupid! Should you give up privacy to be protected against malware? I think not but…frightened Americans do everything..

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/12/usa-today-on-androids-privacy-implications/comment-page-1/#comment-64008 LM1987 Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:05:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16599#comment-64008 <p>A bit stupid to think that the privacy policy proctects you..thank God there are still people who are not that stupid..<br><br>And the malware argument is also stupid! Should you give up privacy to be protected against malware? I think not but...frightened Americans do everything..</p> A bit stupid to think that the privacy policy proctects you..thank God there are still people who are not that stupid..

And the malware argument is also stupid! Should you give up privacy to be protected against malware? I think not but…frightened Americans do everything..

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/12/usa-today-on-androids-privacy-implications/comment-page-1/#comment-61846 luis Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:28:37 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16599#comment-61846 <p>HAhahhahaha. 'privacy policy describes clearly'. hahahhahahahahahha. You do know how laughable that is, right?. Like any good privacy policy, the <a href="http://www.google.com/mobile/android/privacy.html" rel="nofollow">G1 privacy policy</a> commits Google to absolutely zero measurable restraints. <br><br>Blank check #1: "Using some applications or features may send information to Google that is stored with your Google Account. " That language is completely unrestricted; basically this sentence means 'as soon as you use any of our software, we can choose to upload any data we want and tie it to your account.'<br><br>Blank check #2: "We use your information to process your requests and deliver Google services to you, provide customer service functions, and provide you with a better user experience." Magic words here are 'better user experience'- anything we deem to be good for you, we get to use this for, including things you probably would find vaguely creepy if we told you about them.<br><br>Blank check #3: "We may share your information with third parties we use to perform some functions, such as billing related tasks. These third parties will be required to treat your information in accordance with the applicable Google privacy policies." Of course, we already know that the applicable Google policies are blank checks- which the third parties inherit as well.<br><br>Look, this is hardly unique to Google- law school electronic commerce textbooks quite literally say 'you should never write a privacy policy that actually binds your client in any way.' But to pretend that Google is somehow bound by this policy indicates either mind-boggling naivete, mind-boggling ignorance, or willful deception.<br><br>That said, I think you can make a plausible argument (1) that Google has a pretty good ethic about this stuff and (2) that market forces may have at least some regulatory value here. But c'mon, don't insult anyone's intelligence by arguing that the privacy policy means a damn thing.</p> HAhahhahaha. 'privacy policy describes clearly'. hahahhahahahahahha. You do know how laughable that is, right?. Like any good privacy policy, the G1 privacy policy commits Google to absolutely zero measurable restraints.

Blank check #1: “Using some applications or features may send information to Google that is stored with your Google Account. ” That language is completely unrestricted; basically this sentence means 'as soon as you use any of our software, we can choose to upload any data we want and tie it to your account.'

Blank check #2: “We use your information to process your requests and deliver Google services to you, provide customer service functions, and provide you with a better user experience.” Magic words here are 'better user experience'- anything we deem to be good for you, we get to use this for, including things you probably would find vaguely creepy if we told you about them.

Blank check #3: “We may share your information with third parties we use to perform some functions, such as billing related tasks. These third parties will be required to treat your information in accordance with the applicable Google privacy policies.” Of course, we already know that the applicable Google policies are blank checks- which the third parties inherit as well.

Look, this is hardly unique to Google- law school electronic commerce textbooks quite literally say 'you should never write a privacy policy that actually binds your client in any way.' But to pretend that Google is somehow bound by this policy indicates either mind-boggling naivete, mind-boggling ignorance, or willful deception.

That said, I think you can make a plausible argument (1) that Google has a pretty good ethic about this stuff and (2) that market forces may have at least some regulatory value here. But c'mon, don't insult anyone's intelligence by arguing that the privacy policy means a damn thing.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/12/usa-today-on-androids-privacy-implications/comment-page-1/#comment-58079 luis Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:28:37 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16599#comment-58079 <p>HAhahhahaha. 'privacy policy describes clearly'. hahahhahahahahahha. You do know how laughable that is, right?. Like any good privacy policy, the <a href="http://www.google.com/mobile/android/privacy.html" rel="nofollow">G1 privacy policy</a> commits Google to absolutely zero measurable restraints. <br><br>Blank check #1: "Using some applications or features may send information to Google that is stored with your Google Account. " That language is completely unrestricted; basically this sentence means 'as soon as you use any of our software, we can choose to upload any data we want and tie it to your account.'<br><br>Blank check #2: "We use your information to process your requests and deliver Google services to you, provide customer service functions, and provide you with a better user experience." Magic words here are 'better user experience'- anything we deem to be good for you, we get to use this for, including things you probably would find vaguely creepy if we told you about them.<br><br>Blank check #3: "We may share your information with third parties we use to perform some functions, such as billing related tasks. These third parties will be required to treat your information in accordance with the applicable Google privacy policies." Of course, we already know that the applicable Google policies are blank checks- which the third parties inherit as well.<br><br>Look, this is hardly unique to Google- law school electronic commerce textbooks quite literally say 'you should never write a privacy policy that actually binds your client in any way.' But to pretend that Google is somehow bound by this policy indicates either mind-boggling naivete, mind-boggling ignorance, or willful deception.<br><br>That said, I think you can make a plausible argument (1) that Google has a pretty good ethic about this stuff and (2) that market forces may have at least some regulatory value here. But c'mon, don't insult anyone's intelligence by arguing that the privacy policy means a damn thing.</p> HAhahhahaha. 'privacy policy describes clearly'. hahahhahahahahahha. You do know how laughable that is, right?. Like any good privacy policy, the G1 privacy policy commits Google to absolutely zero measurable restraints.

Blank check #1: “Using some applications or features may send information to Google that is stored with your Google Account. ” That language is completely unrestricted; basically this sentence means 'as soon as you use any of our software, we can choose to upload any data we want and tie it to your account.'

Blank check #2: “We use your information to process your requests and deliver Google services to you, provide customer service functions, and provide you with a better user experience.” Magic words here are 'better user experience'- anything we deem to be good for you, we get to use this for, including things you probably would find vaguely creepy if we told you about them.

Blank check #3: “We may share your information with third parties we use to perform some functions, such as billing related tasks. These third parties will be required to treat your information in accordance with the applicable Google privacy policies.” Of course, we already know that the applicable Google policies are blank checks- which the third parties inherit as well.

Look, this is hardly unique to Google- law school electronic commerce textbooks quite literally say 'you should never write a privacy policy that actually binds your client in any way.' But to pretend that Google is somehow bound by this policy indicates either mind-boggling naivete, mind-boggling ignorance, or willful deception.

That said, I think you can make a plausible argument (1) that Google has a pretty good ethic about this stuff and (2) that market forces may have at least some regulatory value here. But c'mon, don't insult anyone's intelligence by arguing that the privacy policy means a damn thing.

]]>