Google Buzz is No “Privacy Nightmare” (Unless You’re a Privacy Paternalist)

by on February 11, 2010 · 88 comments

I’m a big fan of CNET’s “Buzz Out Loud” podcast and often enjoy co-host Molly Wood’s occasional “Molly Rant” but I’m disappointed to see her jumping on the Google-bashing bandwagon with her latest rant: “Google Buzz: Privacy nightmare.” Instead of appreciating the “privacy by design” features of Buzz, she seems to be rushing to privacy paternalism—just as I feared many would when I blogged about the Buzz launch.

Molly’s primary complaint, repeated several times, is that “you automatically follow everyone in your Gmail contact list, and that information is publicly available in your profile, by default, to everyone who visits your profile.” Actually, while Buzz does automatically follow some users your contact list, it does so only for the ones you chat with most using Gmail (which I believe means only other Gmail users). After that, Buzz simply tells you when other users follow you, and makes it easy to follow them.

So what’s the big deal? Molly’s concern, shared by a number of other bloggers, is that, before a user can start Buzzing, they have to set up Google Profile (another Google product launched last August, which typically appears on the bottom of the first page of Google search results for that name) and the default setting for Google profiles is to “Display the list of people I’m following and people following me.” In this respect, your Google Profile is a lot like your Facebook profile, except that users can decide to hide their followers/followees on their Google profile. (On Facebook, that information is part of the limited bucket of “publicly available information” and can’t be hidden by the user from their profile, but users can opt-out of having their profile accessible at all through search engines or Facebook search.)

There are essentially three ways of dealing with this concern about inadvertent sharing of sensitive contacts:

  1. Buzz could autofollow no one—in which case many users would probably log in, see no Buzzes from other users because they’re not yet following anyone, wonder what all the fuss is about, and abandon the service without really getting the sample experience that having a small set of automatically added followers provides.
  2. Gogole could change the default setting for Google profiles not to “Display the list of people I’m following and people following me.” This change in default would make a huge difference in just how easy it is to build out one’s social network, since the best way to find friends you may not have in your own contact book is to look at the list of users your friends are following.
  3. Google provide clearer notice to users to remind them that their most frequent contacts may be publicly visible on their Gooogle profile—which is exactly what Google implemented earlier today by adding the text shown in this splash screen for initial creation of a Google Profile:

Somehow, I suspect that won’t be good enough for her and many other users complaining about this. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the privacy paternalists at EPIC filing another complaint with the FTC arguing that users are too stupid to figure this out for themselves, so the government has to do it for them—no matter the costs to other users in added hassle and a less useful network.

There just isn’t anything wrong with encouraging consumers to use your product rather than making it hard for them to get involved. The success of any social network in achieving a critical mass of vibrant, broad-based participation depends critically on differences as small as whether a user sees a few users when they first start out—or just an empty Inbox. Ban things like autofollowing, no matter how transparent to the user and easy to over-ride they might be, and you’ll make it a lot harder for the next social networking service to get off the ground—and pose a challenge to Google, Facebook and Twitter.

Molly’s next complaint:

let’s say you’ve customized your Google profile page with the vanity URL Google helpfully offers at the bottom of the page. Well, that’d be your e-mail handle. Anytime anyone does an @ reply to you, they’ve broadcast your e-mail address to the world.

True indeed. But she fails to mention that the vanity URL (in my case, http://www.google.com/profiles/berin.szoka) is purely opt-in.  When a user first sets up a Google Profile, they’re given a non-identifying string for their URL that doesn’t tie to their email address. Just above the option to opt-in to the vanity email is this explanation (emphasis added):

To make it easier for people to find your profile, you can customize your URL with your Google email username. (Note this can make your Google email address publicly discoverable.) This unique name will also be used in other links to your content on Google. To help others discover your profile, in some Google services contacts who know your email address will see a link to your profile

So… what more should Google to do? I guess they could bold and italicize the warning as I’ve done…

She’s even more clearly mistaken about the way Buzz works on mobile phones (as one commenter noted):

there are no preferences in the Android app–no way, near as I can tell–to choose to broadcast only to the list of people you follow or a group you’ve established, as you can in the Web interface. So be equally prepared for everyone around you to know who you are and where you are when you post to Buzz from your phone. Yeah, no, really. I’m totally not making this up.

Actually, Buzz is accessible through the mobile browser (not an app), and it gives users the same choice every time they post a new Buzz as to whether the Buzz should be public or private—just as on the desktop browser version. The default setting is public, yes, but so what? Is it really that hard to click “Private?” When you do, you’ll get a list of whatever contact groups you’ve created so you can share your Buzz just with that list—or you can start a new list.

Moreover, “Show Nearby Users” feature only shows Buzzes from users who have decided to broadcast their location.

A number of these responses were raised by commenters on the piece. Most notable was this comment (originally written in ee cummings style, which I have punctuated for readability), which takes issue with Molly’s central complaint that there should be more “setup required”:

i like your show for the most part, molly. but seriously, privacy on the internet these day is like having sex: it’s on us to protect ourselves. it may say “no set up required.” but if we are concerned about things getting out that we don’t want, always check the setting! it’s your virtual condom. wrap it up…

Crude, but exactly right: It’s one thing for Molly and others to suggest ways for Google to make the privacy controls for Buzz and Google Profile more accessible and easily understandable. Google’s already shown its eagerness incorporate constructive suggestions to that end. But it’s quite another thing for privacy paternalists to insist that we just can’t expect users to take any responsibility for their own privacy.

Instead of preaching “Sharing-abstinence-only” (which is what the paternalists’ cry for “opt-in” boils down to), we should be teaching users how to engage in “safer-sharing”—and encouraging companies like Google to build user interfaces that make safety options as easy to use as possible without breaking the whole site. As with sex, there’s no such thing as 100% safe-sharing, but, hey, that’s life. We accept risks all the time—every time we drive, get on a plane or trust that the restaurant meal we’re about to eat hasn’t been contaminated or poisoned. As Adam has reminded us, we need to keep in mind the “proportionality” of the risks involved compared to the benefits, and, ultimately, trust users to chose for themselves.

Addendum: Given the discussion below, I want to reiterate the point I stressed when I first blogged about this, responding to questions raised by Larry Magid in the initial Buzz launch press conference:

I’m glad that Larry is raising these concern as someone who has done yeoman’s work in educating Internet users, especially kids, about how to “Connect Safely” online (the name of his advocacy group). The fact that companies like Google know they’ll get questions like Larry’s is hugely important in keeping them on their toes to continually plan for “privacy by design.”

But I do worry that those with a political axe to grind will take these same questions and twist them into arguments for regulation based on the idea that if some people forget to use a tool or just don’t get care as much about protecting their privacy as some self-appointed “privacy advocates” think they should, the government—led by Platonic philosopher kings who know what’s best for us all—should step in to protect us all from our own forgetfulness, carefulness or plain ol’ apathy. After all, consumers are basically mindless sheep and if the government doesn’t look after them, the digital wolves will devour them whole!

So, by all means, let’s hear some healthy criticism about how Google has implemented Buzz and talk about how the “privacy by design” features can be improved. But let’s make sure to get our facts straight before rushing to assume the worst—or before calling in the Feds to take over.

  • http://www.juliansanchez.com/ Julian Sanchez

    If you go to your Google Reader sharing settings, you’ll see that you can set shared items to be “public” or “protected”—in the latter case shared only with contacts. Her claim, as I understand it, is that she had quite deliberately set her shared items to “protected,” but that Buzz then made all her frequent contacts eligible to view her “protected” notes.

  • http://www.juliansanchez.com/ Julian Sanchez

    If you go to your Google Reader sharing settings, you’ll see that you can set shared items to be “public” or “protected”—in the latter case shared only with contacts. Her claim, as I understand it, is that she had quite deliberately set her shared items to “protected,” but that Buzz then made all her frequent contacts eligible to view her “protected” notes.

  • http://techliberation.com/author/berinszoka/ Berin Szoka

    Right you are, Julian—about the public/private shared settings for Reader. If your suspicion is right, that she had set up shared items to “protected” and Buzz shared them with her auto-followed contacts, I’d certainly agree that that’s a significant potential privacy problem and Google should fix it.

    But to be clear, the other problem here is that Google Reader doesn’t give users the same granularity of control that Buzz does. Reader lets you restrict your shared items to only certain lists, but it’s a one-size-fits-all setting: You decide which lists you want to share all your shared items with. By contrast, Buzz (like Facebook’s new publishing controls) lets you decide, for each new Buzz, which lists you want to share your Buzz with. So, if anything, Reader lacks a privacy by design feature that’s been added with Buzz, and we should be giving Google just a little bit of credit and asking why they didn’t go further with that.

    I really don’t see what Google gains by not adding this privacy control functionality to Reader, so I can only assume this just slipped through the cracks. If so, that mistake has certainly cost Google dearly in terms of reputational capital. I’d like to think they’ll fix it quickly and be more careful in the future, but I suppose only time will tell.

  • http://infoadvocate.org/ gcr

    It is hard to tell what is going on. I turned off buzz as soon as it noticed who my follow relationships were, and I realized they had nothing to do with what I considered people that were important to have in a social network together. I don't use reader or that many other google social products, so I hope I'm ok.

    However, reading the rest of her blog, I'd be interested in hearing what she has to say about people who describe privacy advocates as “paternalist.”

  • http://www.cato.org/ Jim Harper

    Seconded: It's not paternalism to criticize products as a market actor.

  • http://www.techliberation.com Adam Thierer

    Tim… Of course it is true that “public criticism is an important part of the market process,” and that it can have a powerful impact on corporate behavior. The same holds true for debates over acceptable media content. The problem, however, is that far too many people (including now yourself above) put forward the “well, people are just too stupid or lazy to know what's good for them” argument and claim that consumers just can't be expected to read the fine print, check a little box, or just stop using a service.

    Worse yet, they then use that anti-personal responsibility ethos as an excuse for government intervention. Whether it's media content or privacy policies, I hear the same syllogism again and again:

    1 – People “don't understand the implications” / are getting fooled / don't know what's best for them
    2 – Companies can't be trusted to set the right defaults (namely, they can't be trusted to self-regulate to self-censors edgy content, or they can't be trusted to cripple information sharing by default in the name of privacy)
    3 – Therefore, SOMEONE (uh, that would be the feds) needs to set a better default (to establish a better “community standard”) to protect us

    Of course, I know YOU would not counsel #3 as the solution, I'm just saying that's where the logic of #1 and #2 lead. And if, as you suggest, public pressure and social norms change corporate content or innovation choices in a spontaneous fashion, then fine. I have no problem with that.

    Finally, let's not forget we are talking about an email / social networking feature here that no one forces us to use, and there are plenty of other options. As you said in your Tweet last night, you are glad you don't use Google as your default mail provider. Same goes for me. (Dirty little secret: I hate Gmail. Absolutely despise it. Almost never use it). And others are always free to use alternatives. If they do so because they don't like Gmail's new social sharing features via Buzz, then fine. That's a choice. It's the same choice I would support with a conservative group rallies people to stop watching certain shows because they are “smutty” — just so long as those groups don't try to tell ME what to watch or take away my access to exciting new services and innovations.

  • Ryan Radia

    I don't think pro-regulation privacy zealots deserve a monopoly on criticizing a market product's privacy features. Of course, if I take issue with Gmail, I don't have to use it. But if concerned users can successfully convince Google to change its ways for the better before jumping ship en masse, then it seems like the market is working. (Oh, and I suggest you try accessing Gmail with Outlook; thanks to IMAP+SSL it rivals native Exchange in many respects.)

  • Pingback: Defining “Paternalism” Online

  • http://www.timothyblee.com/ Tim Lee

    The problem, however, is that far too many people (including now yourself above) put forward the “well, people are just too stupid or lazy to know what's good for them” argument and claim that consumers just can't be expected to read the fine print, check a little box, or just stop using the service.

    Adam, I'm saying precisely that “consumers can't be expected to read the fine print” for all the websites they visit. This isn't about stupidity or laziness, it's about cost-benefit analysis. Digesting fine print takes time, and it would take a ridiculous amount of time to read all the fine print on every website I visit. Instead, I expect the web apps I use to behave in a reasonable fashion. Among other things, I expect them not to disclose my personal information without my clear and explicit consent. A large number of GMail users feel that Google has failed to live up to this obligation.

  • http://www.cato.org/ Jim Harper

    Adam, you're putting strategy ahead of sensibility: “Don't say anything that could support an argument for regulation.”

    Like Ryan, I don't think people who favor market regulation should hold their tongues about products and practices they don't like. In fact, doing so makes it appear to audiences we're trying to convince that we're just blind supporters of businesses, however rapacious they may be.

    I don't think Tim should even have to couch it as carefully as he does. I'll say it since he won't: Some people are too stupid to know what's good for them. It doesn't follow that regulators should look after them. Rather, market criticism of goods and services guides the design of products to the better for the ignorant as much as for the intellectual and the activist.

    And the question here is not whether anyone is forced to use anything. It's whether a company can change the information terms of a product people have chosen to use based on the preexisting terms. I don't think so. I think this is an F-up, and I'm all for calling it out.

  • http://www.techliberation.com Adam Thierer

    The argument that Google could have done more to make users clearly aware of the changes is probably the best one out there. But it begs the question: How much notice is enough? And what constitutes “clear and explicit” consent? Think about all the fine print in the many other contracts and documents we sign onto every day in this world. In each case, the question of notice and “clear and explicit consent” comes into play but generally let people sign off on all sorts of things without reading every word of what is in the contract. In Google's case, what would make you happy? I can imagine a scenario in which a lot of bells and whistles go off and you are asked 3 times to consent to sharing information in the way Buzz does. Is that enough? Or are you saying — like most privacy regulatory advocates do — that precisely because of that oh-so-tedious mental transaction cost problem that the default setting should be required to be set at “Cripple Information Sharing”?

    The Net — and the engine that powers it (advertising) — is built on information sharing. A lot of people don't like that fact. But if you cripple information sharing by default because people don't like the “cost-benefit analysis” associated with reading fine print, it will have serious ramifications. Namely, we are going to start getting charged for services that are currently free of charge. Perhaps that is the path most people prefer; I just hope they understand the consequences.

  • http://techliberation.com/author/berinszoka/ Berin Szoka

    Agreed completely, Ryan. I should have stressed more in my post that I didn't mean to discourage healthy criticism. As I mentioned in my original post about Larry Magid's questions,

    I'm glad that Larry is raising these concern as someone who has done yeoman's work in educating Internet users, especially kids, about how to “Connect Safely” online (the name of his advocacy group). The fact that companies like Google know they'll get questions like Larry's is hugely important in keeping them on their toes to continually plan for “privacy by design.”

    But I do worry that those with a political axe to grind will take these same questions and twist them into arguments for regulation based on the idea that if some people forget to use a tool or just don't get care as much about protecting their privacy as some self-appointed “privacy advocates” think they should, the government—led by Platonic philosopher kings who know what's best for us all—should step in to protect us all from our own forgetfulness, carefulness or plain ol' apathy. After all, consumers are basically mindless sheep and if the government doesn't look after them, the digital wolves will devour them whole!

    Molly, much as I love her, was off on several key factual details so my main purpose was to set her straight on how Buzz actually works and to note just how much granularity of privacy control it gives users. The key issue, I agree, is how Google has implemented the auto-following feature.

  • http://www.juliansanchez.com/ Julian Sanchez

    I think that’s basically right, I’d just add that this only really works properly if they do bear pretty serious and immediate reputational costs when they screw it up. Even if nothing else happens, the angry blogger we’ve been discussing is probably going to spend the next week fearing for her physical safety—and you can multiply that by who knows how many others. But that harm is unlikely to ever get litigated, and information once released can’t be stuffed back in the bottle. So I think you’re unlikely to get the incentives right if privacy-destructive errors aren’t generally punished by a public reaction that might seem disproportionate. (For the same reason that the penalty for theft is typically much higher than the value of what was stolen in the particular instance.)

  • http://www.juliansanchez.com/ Julian Sanchez

    I think that’s basically right, I’d just add that this only really works properly if they do bear pretty serious and immediate reputational costs when they screw it up. Even if nothing else happens, the angry blogger we’ve been discussing is probably going to spend the next week fearing for her physical safety—and you can multiply that by who knows how many others. But that harm is unlikely to ever get litigated, and information once released can’t be stuffed back in the bottle. So I think you’re unlikely to get the incentives right if privacy-destructive errors aren’t generally punished by a public reaction that might seem disproportionate. (For the same reason that the penalty for theft is typically much higher than the value of what was stolen in the particular instance.)

  • http://text-patterns.thenewatlantis.com/ Alan Jacobs

    Adam’s comment (the most recent as I write) is acute and clear — thanks for it. It is for just these reasons that, after several years with Gmail and 30,000 messages, I have abandoned it for Fastmail. I have also abandoned Google Reader, perhaps for Bloglines and perhaps for a desktop solution. Within the next month I hope to have eliminated my reliance on all Google apps, and eventually I hope to delete my Google account altogether. The direction Google is quite forcibly taking its customers is one I want no part of.

  • http://text-patterns.thenewatlantis.com/ Alan Jacobs

    Adam’s comment (the most recent as I write) is acute and clear — thanks for it. It is for just these reasons that, after several years with Gmail and 30,000 messages, I have abandoned it for Fastmail. I have also abandoned Google Reader, perhaps for Bloglines and perhaps for a desktop solution. Within the next month I hope to have eliminated my reliance on all Google apps, and eventually I hope to delete my Google account altogether. The direction Google is quite forcibly taking its customers is one I want no part of.

  • http://text-patterns.thenewatlantis.com/ Alan Jacobs

    Adam’s comment (the most recent as I write) is acute and clear — thanks for it. It is for just these reasons that, after several years with Gmail and 30,000 messages, I have abandoned it for Fastmail. I have also abandoned Google Reader, perhaps for Bloglines and perhaps for a desktop solution. Within the next month I hope to have eliminated my reliance on all Google apps, and eventually I hope to delete my Google account altogether. The direction Google is quite forcibly taking its customers is one I want no part of.

  • juliansanchez

    You appear to be starting from the self-evident repugnance of (3) and then trying to make this a reason to reject supporting premises (1) — so obviously true at this point that I think it's really beyond serious debate — and (2), which is at least damn plausible. My friends are pretty damn tech savvy, and I'm seeing a lot of confusion about what Buzz is sharing with whom by default. The woman who's afraid her abusive ex-husband may have learned the identity of her current boyfriend or her place of employment does not strike me as stupid or irresponsible: In the comments to her post, she talks about measures she took to protect her online privacy, and indeed, says she deliberately refrained from setting up Buzz because of privacy concerns, only to realize sharing of at least some information to frequent contacts had somehow been enabled anyway. If that's right, it looks like Google that's being irresponsible.

  • Pingback: Google Buzz is No “Privacy Nightmare” (Unless You're a Privacy … « dermoweb

  • http://www.facebook.com/ryan.calo Ryan Calo

    Berin,

    The fixes Google rolled out in response to consumer “feedback” on Buzz mitigated many of the initial problems. Now users are prompted to create a Google Profile, told that followers will be public by default, and afforded the opportunity to opt out before any of their contacts are revealed. I wish this were the case from the start but I respect the immediate action.

    I still haven't gotten any clarity, however, on what happens if you already had a Google Profile (as I did). In that case, it would seem that suddenly anyone who searches for you and finds your Profile will see the people with whom you chat and email the most. Meanwhile, you have not done anything—not logged in to Gmail, not visited Buzz, or anything else. That's not just asking for intelligence; it's asking for hyper-vigilance.

    Ryan

  • Allen

    Google's New Buzz is a privacy nightmare…

    Basically any one you connect with via Buzz gets a full list and access to everyone you ever email or connect with using any of Google services, Facebook or Twitter if you have a public Google profile!!!

    Did you know any picture you upload creates and automatic Picasa account in your name and also a web album???? Your real name is made available even in your account uses an alias or a business identity
    Did you know that if you use buzz on your mobile device any other users nearby will be able to see your location… (oh great!!! perfect for women users having issues with stalkers!!!! Everyone in the area can be informed in real time exactly where you are… and get a google map and directions included!!!)
    Google Buzz also makes available all your Facebook interactions and friends and all your tweets and followers on Twitter! All of this is set up as soon as you click on the Buzz icon… without giving you the option of configuring initially…

    You can be putting yourself and your family and your job at risk… Don't just open a Buzz account without knowing that it opens access to and makes visible everything you email, post or Tweet along with that of everyone you connect with online!

    Seriously….. Don't use Buzz until Google gets a clue about online safety and privacy!

    Please Read this article before you use it…

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-31322_3-10451428-256….

    and this one:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/warning-google-b
    and also read the fine print of Google's admitted Buzz privacy policy or rather “lack of privacy” policy.
    http://www.google.com/buzz/help/privacy.html
    Google Privacy Policy.
    In addition, if you upload a photo via the Buzz interface or choose to email images to

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jamie-Clark/595654128 Jamie Clark

    This is a great thread .. about fundamental issues of contract law. Should a luser who voluntarily gives private stuff to a free service provider (doh!) have any right to expectations? Should any contract-y text from a service provider, visible to a user somewhere in itty-bitty text under six clicks, form a contract with them? Are there privacy rights you can't agree to give up, even if you manage to scrawl an ape-like X signature on the ToS that waives them?
    About half the issues here are about user trust, not law; the market will work those out.
    The other half of the issues already are sorted out by existing law — all demagoguery aside — and eventually, we will see THAT spelled out, in lawsuits, this time or next time.
    However: not everything that makes people mad is illegal.

  • Lucy C

    Dear Little Tech Boys: Many of you are not getting it. It seems that women are having a much easier time understanding the privacy issue. So let's try it this way: You are conducting relationships with three different girls. (in your dreams, but let's pretend). You email all of them on a regular basis. They are –by Google's standards– at the top of your contact list. Each of the three thinks you are seeing her exclusively. Now one day –without your ASKING for this, or knowing that it was going to happen, Google decides that you want the names of your top “contacts” to be public –and known to each other. So HOW is this an invasion of your privacy? All three already know your email address…but you certainly didn't plan to be in a “social network” that included all three at the same time…or for them to know about or be able to communicate with each other. As for the other results….I leave them to your imagination….

  • http://www.sexshop123.co.uk/clothes-dress-c-86_249.html Adult Dress Up

    The main beef in the blogosphere seems to be that the implications of having a public Google profile with a public follow list aren't clear when initially setting up Buzz.

  • GaryM

    Gee, I always thought I was a libertarian, and now I find I'm a “privacy paternalist.” If I had a Google profile, Google would be making the list of the people I most often email public, even if I don't do anything. This strikes me as a clear and grievous violation of their privacy policy, i.e., a breach of contract. But you're saying that because Google provides a “don't remind me this is happening” button mislabelled as “turn off Buzz,” and because there are hidden instructions on how to remove the information they've made public after the fact, I'm an Obamaoid statist.

    I was unaware that libertarianism implies the right to deceive and to ignore previous agreements.

  • http://www.cato.org/ Jim Harper

    Gary, please note the extensive pushback Berin got in the comments from his co-bloggers – including specific discussion of the contractual violation in making usere of Gmail users of Buzz. Your indignation is a little overdone.

  • http://www.cato.org/ Jim Harper

    Thanks, Lucy, for demonstrating so well how not to persuade others. Insulting your audience is the thing that most opens minds and ears! (I'm being facetious in case you didn't notice.)

    Some got it, and we spoke up loudly and clearly to others who may not have.

  • http://www.casual-sex.co.uk/ Adult Dating

    Google may not have gotten this exactly right and there's room for improvement here, but the answer lies in building in some better notices to users to make sure they know what's happening here. Google's alrady done some of that but there room for them to do more.

  • http://www.casual-sex.co.uk/ Adult Dating

    Google may not have gotten this exactly right and there's room for improvement here, but the answer lies in building in some better notices to users to make sure they know what's happening here. Google's alrady done some of that but there room for them to do more.

  • Pingback: The 10 most influential blog posts discussing Google Buzz | Cision Blog

  • Pingback: Jim Harper and Berin Szoka on privacy and Google Buzz — Surprisingly Free

  • http://www.swingersonline.org.uk/ UK Swingers

    The problem, however, is that the well, people are just too stupid or lazy to know what's good for them

  • http://www.kandygirlz.com/ Sexy British Babes

    One thing I am worried about is people that use Gmail for Business. Or for example checking Gmail from School or Work Network. Will IT personnel start blocking Gmail due to Buzz, because it became social networking tool overnight?

  • http://www.kandygirlz.com/ Sexy British Babes

    One thing I am worried about is people that use Gmail for Business. Or for example checking Gmail from School or Work Network. Will IT personnel start blocking Gmail due to Buzz, because it became social networking tool overnight?

  • rashmi23w

    Privacy has become so important now that the one service with the most favorable privacy policy will rule the social networking scene in the coming few years

  • http://www.AdvancedRaidRecovery.co.uk Raid recovery

    Privacy has become so important now that the one service with the most favorable privacy policy will rule the social networking scene in the coming few years

  • http://www.economym.com/index.php?mid=kyungjea&document_srl=4215 Erica

    Just want to say your article is as surprising.
    The clearness in your post is simply nice and
    i could assume you are an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission let me
    to grab your feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post.
    Thanks a million and please continue the gratifying work.

  • Pingback: URL

Previous post:

Next post: