RSSGoogle Called 'Hostile to Privacy'
By Ed Oswald | Published June 11, 2007, 12:22 PM
Google is being taken to task by a UK-based privacy group over its apparent lack of a commitment to the privacy of its users. However, the company is doing what it can do discredit the report.
Privacy International said Saturday that the Mountain View, Calif.-based search engine had the lowest possible grade of any of the 22 online companies it surveyed, a level which it called "comprehensive consumer surveillance and entrenched hostility to privacy."
The group said in the report that it knew that putting Google at the bottom would stir up controversy, but it said through its research no other company came close to "achieving status as an endemic threat to privacy."
Although nobody attained the highest level of privacy protection, BBC, eBay Inc., Last.fm, LiveJournal.com, and Wikipedia.com all received the second highest rating, "Generally privacy-aware but in need of improvement."
Several companies and services were only a step ahead of Google, having "substantial and comprehensive privacy threats." Those companies were AOL, Apple, Facebook, Hi5, Reunion.com, Windows Live Spaces, and Yahoo.
Microsoft received an "orange" rating, standing for "serious lapses in privacy practices." While PI acknowledged some might find the rating arguable, the organization said the company had made significant strides to improve its commitment to user privacy.
Concerns over user privacy are nothing new to Google. Last month, the EU said it would investigate the company's user data retention practices, saying it could run afoul of the bloc's laws.
Google did not comment too much publicly over the weekend, only complaining that the report was full of inaccuracies and that PI did not contact Google before the report was released.
However, PI claims that the company is organizing a coordinated smear campaign against the company. In a open letter to CEO Eric Schmidt, the group said that two European journalists had told PI that Google was saying the organization had a conflict of interest surrounding Microsoft.
"According to our sources, your representative or representatives made particular reference to one member of our 70-member international Advisory Board. This man is a current employee of Microsoft," PI Director Simon Daviess aid.
"I can confirm that he joined our Advisory Board well before he was headhunted by Microsoft," he continued.
Google had no immediate response to PI's latest claims.
Privacy International somebody ask them how they forgot to invite Al Sharpton to their advisory board.
I value my privacy just as much as any Libertarian would, but i would be showing zero intelligence & as well lose all public credibility if i gave even the slightest hint of credibility to such a ridiculous piece of sensationalist voodoo..
BBC ok to be ranked high... but e-Bay in their same category?
AOL, Facebook, Reunion.com, Windows Live Spaces and Yahoo all rate in the same category...and worse-- rate higher than Google?
Please!
Score: 0
|Come onnnn, Google is not a devil or a pirate!! please read this:
http://www.mattcutts.com...l-loses-all-credibility/
Score: 0
|Google is the Devil!
Score: 0
|This is news? Only a blind person with their head in the sand....
PC_Tool, I didn't know you were such a Google fanboy. :^)
Score: 0
|*shrug*
Show me one clear, documented instance where they've intentionally broken their privacy policy, taken data that wasn't handed to them, or did not get consent prior to activating the features in question.
Just one.
That's all it will take for me to jump ship.
In the last 3 years, no-one has been able to do that.
I wouldn't call someone who'd jump the boat at first instance a fanboy, but hey, definitions evolve, right?
Score: 0
|PI's Methodology: http://www.privacyintern...l?cmd[347]=x-347-553961
Interim Report: http://www.privacyintern...net/interimrankings.pdf
Score: 0
|lmao..
You earn a black rating by:Comprehensive consumer surveillance & entrenched hostility to privacy.
Comprehensive surveillance? Um, yeah. Perhaps they need to specify consensual.
Hostility to the folks who have publicly made claims against Google without merit or evidence? Surely you jest.
And did you read the report? I'd be *really* interested to see where they get that information. Most of it sounds like hear-say. Where's the backup proving, 1) Google believes IPs are not personal information (it was the #1 reason they didn't want to hand over logs to the Feds), 2) Opt-out possible for *some* services? Give me a break. All Google data-gathering is opt-in. The only caveat here is use of the search engine, which is the same for *every* search provider, which, considering it's not required to use it, is still opt-in.
The rest of their claims are just that.
Scrolled all the way to the bottom. No justification for any of the claims. We're just supposed to believe them because they made a nice PDF, then.
Got me. I'm convinced.
Shya.
3 years and counting.
Score: 0
|I admire people who simply will not let themselves be confused by the facts.
Score: 0
|Seriously.
On that I can agree.
I'd like to add how much I really love talking to folks who confuse fact with fiction.
Score: 0
|I think a different article said that Google had wanted to sit down and talk with PI to inform them of Google's practices, but didn't have the opportunity. PI on the other hand said that they tried to get in touch with Google, but got no response.
I tend to believe the latter. Why would a large company like Google care about some joker calling the receptionist's desk a few months back, trying to get in contact with "someone important"?
Score: 0
|Google not giving a damn about privacy is no ews. I've always been avoiding Google like the plague for reasons like this.
Score: 0
|What reasons?
They haven't given any other than "possibilities" and "fear". Whereas I offered at least one instance in where they went a hell of a lot farther to protect our privacy than the other 2.
Score: 0
|Lame.
Back when the US gov't demanded search logs from MSN, Yahoo, and Google, who's the *only* search engine that didn't cave?
They have *nothing* to back this up. Yes, Google has information. Duh? They're a search engine, they *deal* in information.
One of their complaints is the toolbar. It's entirely opt-in. The data gathering is turned OFF by default.
The other complaint they have is how "big" they are.
Sorry, Big!=Bad.
They have done more to protect our privacy than Yahoo or MSN. They have no history of "letting it slide", and yet they still manage to attract all the paranoid conspiracy twats.
I suppose it's all good. Sort of a back-handed compliment. Nothing will come of this (other than perhaps another scathing response from Google to the "privacy" industry). Apparently they're just successful enough to be a hard to miss target for these delusional imbeciles.
This is noting more than sensationalism at its worst. Some git (or group of 'em) trying to get his name out there.
Score: 0
|Nobody takes the time to read their EULA, Terms of Use policy or Privacy Policy, though.
Score: 0
|Oh.
They don't care about their privacy then? Well, I guess it won't be a problem for them then.
Score: 0
|