Apple Drops Out of Top 20 Most Trusted Companies for Privacy

[tninety]

Originally Posted by soundguyami

This doesn't surprise me. Apple needed to shore up some app security. Google of all companies should be dead last. If people only knew what they track...but again..they give you free stuff so i guess they feel they can sell info on things right down to how many times you clicked the R key.

Do you have proof that they sell info on "things right down to how many times you clicked the R key?"

I think you have In Tim Cooks' Pants Syndrome.

In all seriousness, Google is extremely serious about privacy... your searches and history is stored on their servers, and they do use it to serve you ads (without actually giving the advertisers your personal info…), and they do scan your email (using bots) to serve you ads, but nothing is actually processed by a human and no personally identifying info is ever given to third parties. They know their corporate image and business model depend on people trusting them to keep your info safe.

A few months ago, the FBI was looking into Android app piracy and subpoenaed a bunch of Android developers on the Play Store who might have been victimized. Google contacted every single subpoenaed developer and let them know their info was given to the FBI, despite the FBI's explicit instructions not to, because the court order didn't force them to keep quiet.

[louis Fashion]

I google Rolls Royce 2 or 3 times a day- just to give them fits.
I have 36 fake Facebook accounts dedicated to cats. Just to give them fits.
I Tweet under a fake, name but it does not appear to go anywhere. I doubt it gives anyone fits....

I have the most expensive iPhone in the world, but all services are turned off.
I have don't even have the email thingy activated on the phone.
Text is blocked.

I don't answer the phone. And I never set up voice mail....

I don't a girlfriend, fake or otherwise....

[tninety]

Originally Posted by louis Fashion

I google Rolls Royce 2 or 3 times a day- just to give them fits.
I have 36 fake Facebook accounts dedicated to cats. Just to give them fits.
I Tweet under a fake, name but it does not appear to go anywhere. I doubt it gives anyone fits....

I have the most expensive iPhone in the world, but all services are turned off.
I have don't even have the email thingy activated on the phone.
Text is blocked.

I don't answer the phone. And I never set up voice mail....

I don't a girlfriend, fake or otherwise....

The truly paranoid way

[Gemütlichkeit]

people's opinion? well i figure these numbers would change if apple made a mass marketing on privacy right before the poll was taken.

[CShort]

Considering how iMessages around here tend to fly to any phone then I'm not surprised.

[iMikeT]

Originally Posted by ArtOfWarfare

It takes a singular will to make a meaningful change in the world we live in. Most people lack one. Grouping together people gets you quite possibly less than the sum of your parts (because of their conflicting wills, however small they may be.)



The customers should. I already stated that. If you know a company makes defected products, stop buying from it, and encourage everyone else to do the same. Leave reviews online. Have the media cover it. The government needs not be involved.

The same can be applied to anything else the company might do that you don't like (IE, if they abuse human rights.)



Do you actually have any evidence that it's designed to fail? Do you have any evidence of free markets of its own accord failing?



They absolutely are people. They don't destroy the world - if you truly believed that, you'd stop buying Apple's products - they change the world. Whether the net impact is for the better or worse is debatable - I for one think it's for the better.

What are you suggesting they're doing that's illegal?

Look, I'm not going to bother going back and forth with you about this because you've obviously drank the Kool Aid and deeply invested in your idiotology. I've gone back and forth with people who share your line of thinking and it goes nowhere. If you're comfortable living with your intellectual dishonesty, I feel sorry for you.

Bottom line, corporations are not people, corporations corrupt our politics, and corporations mislead their very consumers.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by CShort

Considering how iMessages around here tend to fly to any phone then I'm not surprised.

Oh, how potentially career-limiting!

[supercoolmanchu]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Maybe because my original post was asking a question which was taken off on a tangent completely unrelated to the question, a very simple question which you still cant answer.

I don't care about your question, I addressed everything I needed to from your last post.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Last I checked Apple made Hardware, software and ran an add agency. The same applies to Microsoft.

So? iAd does something nefarious? Like… ? What evil does Microsoft do with their ad thing? I think you're grasping to prove some kind of moral equivalency to help balance Google's reputation and support your original idea that they all violate privacy the same. Google calls a huge part of their business 'ads' which varies greatly from public level stuff like adwords and google sense products, to very private agreements with unknown clients. There are no controls on this, no disclosures and only Google's tarnished word that they are behaving. Sketchy bro, real sketchy.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Google also runs an online MP3, Video and App store - each companies other activities are irrelevant to the discussion we're supposed to be having here.

Yeah, Apple also runs a cafeteria, but they ain't making their bones in the restaurant business. You can imagine the subsequent level of corporate effort into their private data scamming from brownie sales. Again, you're trying to establish moral equivalency with an enterprise convicted of privacy violations. It sounds like more your ethical firmware and comparative subroutines need an upgrade.

Regardless, Apple discloses more about their side business customers than Google does about it's overwhelmingly primary business customers. What does Google give Target when they enter into an ad contract? We don't know, Google won't even disclose that Target 'advertises' with them. We do know that Google goes to extraordinary lengths to acquire personal data over both Microsoft and Apple.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

I agree that Google were in the wrong on the whole Safari thing - there's no questioning that, and it certainly damaged their reputation (and rightly so) however look at what it actually was they did. It's not 'hacking' it was exploiting a flaw that was present in Safari. Facebook were also found to be doing it. The shocking thing is, it was a glaringly obvious flaw. So we've got three culprits. Google and Facebook for exploiting it, and Apple for not patching it.

You want to tar Apple in the Safari thing, so you can say that they are a guilty culprit just like Google. That's crazy and lazy. Apple did not ask Google to come in through an open window and steal the TV, nor did they ask Facebook to come in and steal the jewelry. What's next, you're going to say that Apple deserved it because they dressed provocatively?

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Google will be rightly sued for it, and will learn their lesson. But lets look at what the data they got out of that actually was - its the exact same data they would have got if people didn't click the 'opt-out' button, so its hardly the crime of the century.

So privacy violations are harmless if the data stolen is insignificant? IS that the same as it's ok to kill people under a certain height? OK to steal under a certain value? They will learn their lesson? Do you believe the punishment offset the value of information they broke the law to acquire? I think that's a pretty big leap of both reason and faith.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Care to provide sources for a few more cases of such 'hacking' that Google has been involved in?

Again, Google is not new to privacy scandals. You can do your own big boy searches if you were asleep during these parts of recent history.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Google ads are served via the following methods:

- Adsense (using Adwords where anyone can buy adspace)
- Doubleclick (which is essentially adwords but for 'big' clients)
- Google domains (for parking pages)
- AdMob (mobile adverts)
- YouTube ads

What else would you like them to disclose? They even disclosed a big list of their biggest clients not long ago (have a look on Mashable

You are incorrect, Google didn't disclose any clients.

Wordstream in 2011 took a guess and said their biggest 'adwords' client was University of Phoenix. You might also notice I preloaded this in an earlier subject (and probably realizing now that you're outflanked in your Google reputation white washing campaign). Their public ad business is chump change if UoP is their biggest client for adwords, they can't get to 37 billion in revenue that way. UoP marketing budget (not just ads) for 2011 was around $600 million. Target's ad budget alone for 2011 was $1.36 billion dollars. Proctor and Gamble's ad budget for 2011 was $10 billion dollars. Hint: they aren't just buying Doubleclick and ****** off the Google website. Google enters into specific advertising contracts with their bigger customers. The terms of these deals are negotiated individually and have never been publicly disclosed nor their customers.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

You know, reading back through your posts I've yet to actually see anything of any relevance. You've made some pretty big claims about why Google is bad, with not a shed of evidence, and point to the only flaw (the safari incident, of which Apple is not an innocent party) in an otherwise spotless record.

Maybe you are innocently ignorant of Google's history. My job is not to educate you, therefore your retention and analytical performance is not my concern. Since you are clearly very fond of the company, might I suggest utilizing Google search? However… a spotless record is beyond laughable. What are you developing joke apps for Android or something?

Originally Posted by rmwebs

As above, its unacceptable that Google did that. However by your logic the people who support Apple (The ones who failed to patch a highly known vulnrability) are also tainted. Everyone cocks up at some point. Apple is far from perfect

On the flip side, what has Apple done since failing to patch a vulndrability that was known for a long time? Why would you trust that OS X is now secure? You can throw ifs and buts around but it comes down to personal choice, and sanity.

Far from perfect is not the same as 'deliberately' sleazy. Failing to fix an iffy lock is not the same as breaking in to steal stuff. You're not really doing a good job at this moral equivalency thing, but it's definitely your go-to tactic.

Fact: Apple and Microsoft haven't broken into any third party software that I own to gleam my data. Fact: Google has.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

By that logic, if Google had never been caught exploiting Apple's Safari vulnerability then they would be considered to be fantastic.

No, getting caught is demonstrable proof they were doing something wrong. It also leads to reasonable doubt about their integrity, and not a basis for establishing any kind of trust.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Oh and as someone else pointed out, Apple were caught being naught, arguably worse than Google as it affected a lot more people. Look at the iOS user tracking scandal

http://www.businessinsider.com/ifa-a...6-2012-10?op=1

I'm glad you brought this up, I almost put it into my last post. However this doesn't help your point. Apple had one privacy slip-up, and the full details of which tend to support their side and story.
People should be cautious of their data with Apple because of this, but because of Google's continued behavior people shouldn't trust them at all. The details of their crime, do not help their side of the story.

It would also be a big stretch to imagine how Apple profited by that instance, and therefor it leaves little room to establish nefarious intentions for doing so. I'd also point to the effort Apple put into explaining the incident. Google lacks anywhere near that level of accountability and responsiveness. Even if you totally don't believe their story, Apple took extra corporate steps to address the issue. Google's criminal actions did not result in any real significant corporate effort in addressing what happened.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Correct. Google's income does rely (although recently to a lesser extent) on picking up users browsing habbits and using it to show related advertisements. Whats your point here though? As we already established, they would actually LOOSE money if they sold that information on. It's a much more financially viable business model to use the keyword system where advertisers pick certain keywords, and the ads are then shown to users who's browsing habbits match those keywords, thus creating a recurring income for Google. Selling the details would be a one-shot deal, once its sold the buyer buggers off until they need more info a few years down the line. The keyword model forces them to keep paying Google monthly. And yes, this is something Apple do with iAds, as does Microsoft on Bing, Viglink do it here at MacRumors, etc.

I don't recall any reports of nefarious Microsoft behavior regarding personal data with Bing, nor Apple with iAds, nor Viglink. I informed you of both Google's privacy infractions and direct, substantial revenue incentives.

If Google's income relies on selling 'ads'. Why all the demographic collection? It's totally unnecessary to putting ninja store ads on the page when I search for my ninja supplies.

When you start a large 'ad' campaign with Google, they throw in periodic demographic reports for the length of the 'ad' buy. Your idea that selling this data once would put them out of business is totally silly. Google gives more complete data to bigger customers, the more you pay the more comprehensive and specific the info. Demographics is also a separate industry to advertising (I'm guessing this is news to you), though this is Google's primary cover for saying they don't sell your data, they only sell 'ads' (that just happen to come the personal data… wink, wink).

Originally Posted by rmwebs

It's not some sort of conspiracy. It's the way advertising has always worked. Google are just able to make a hell of a lot more money as they own 2 of the top 3 websites in the world (Youtube and Google.com) and a good 20% of the top 100 websites in the world. Nobody else has the kind of exposure they have.

No, it's not the way advertising has always worked, again demographics (or data collection) is a separate industry. Just like paper is a separate industry to print ads, which have a much longer history than anything Google does.

It's not like Google is an 'ad' power house because of their incredible advertising abilities and effectiveness. Most online ads are totally ignored and ineffective, this is well known and a well studied phenonminon. Network TV is still more valuable and effective. What Google offers above TV networks is more extensive private demographic data, that these companies can also use for their TV ads. This is not hidden knowledge at all.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Likewise. It's almost like you're under mind control, forced to hate anything non-Apple. I bet you hate Samsung and Microsoft too dont you, and I bet you think Android is a 'blatant copy' of iOS

I don't think I've really said much about Apple at all. I've stood up for Microsoft just as much so far. You're reaching and I think you tipped your hand with your last statement. You have Android issues with a Mac rumor site? Sorry, can't fix that for you.

----------

Originally Posted by tninety

A few months ago, the FBI was looking into Android app piracy and subpoenaed a bunch of Android developers on the Play Store who might have been victimized. Google contacted every single subpoenaed developer and let them know their info was given to the FBI, despite the FBI's explicit instructions not to, because the court order didn't force them to keep quiet.

So they tipped off their partners about a FBI raid, but gave up all the info anyway?
Where's the character upside in that.

The FBI was looking into privacy violations and Google made it harder to investigate somehow?

[fulwild]

The most trusted non profit is the NRA and the most trusted energy company is BP.
You really think this survey has any validity?

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by soundguyami

This doesn't surprise me. Apple needed to shore up some app security. Google of all companies should be dead last. If people only knew what they track...but again..they give you free stuff so i guess they feel they can sell info on things right down to how many times you clicked the R key.

Enlighten us, what Google tracks and what info they sell?

[Bezetos]

Originally Posted by ArchAndroid

Google - a company who covertly gives away your information to anyone who's willing to pay them.

It's funny how many people think Google sells your private information only because there is many people thinking and writing that Google sells your private information...

tldr; - Google doesn't sell your information

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by Bezetos

It's funny how many people think Google sells your private information only because there is many people thinking and writing that Google sells your private information...

tldr; - Google doesn't sell your information

Indeed.

People seem to confuse the issue on purpose or out of ignorance that getting caught hacking safari and/or collecting information equates to selling people's personal information. They aren't the same thing. And while I don't agree that Google was in the right for what they did with iOS - it still doesn't make them evil FOR SELLING PEOPLE'S private information.

[AaronEdwards]

Originally Posted by fulwild

The most trusted non profit is the NRA and the most trusted energy company is BP.
You really think this survey has any validity?

The survey is about the most trusted companies for privacy. Not the most trusted company in general, or anything else.

While BP is great at leaking oil, they may actually be great at not leaking your private information.
And while I loath the NRA, for all I know, they may store the personal information they collect very securely.

So, what's not valid here is your argument for why the survey isn't valid...

[MacMilligan]

Originally Posted by GoodWatch

If Apple was at #1, would you still regard it as a 'very flawed survey'? Just curious.

It wouldn't change anything. My argument points out a specific source of concern, so my post's basis is completely transparent. Personally, I don't trust any company with my information and would have a hard time coming up with a list like the survey required.

[Michaelgtrusa]

Of so maybe they were working with Google on the safari breach eh? ...or is it about reaching their profit goals?

[nstrudwick]

Apologies for pedantry, and apologies in case somebody else pointed this out, but Apple are not in 21st position. They are NR, "not rated", and the fact that they are in the physical list below number 20 is mainly chance. Also note they've only been in this list three of the last seven years anyway, so this seems to be a Macrumors story about next to nothing.

[G51989]

Originally Posted by ArchAndroid

Google - a company who covertly gives away your information to anyone who's willing to pay them.

Stop lying. Google does not give away your information to anyone. They sell targeted ads to advertisers., the people buying the ads know nothing about. Your personal information is kept private. The advertisers never see it.

Why would google sell your information? They would lose money.

[MH01]

Originally Posted by lesser evets

show me a person that trusts a company, i'll show you a world-class moron.

Millions and millions trust the BBC.

[Cubytus]

Too tempting to keep quiet. Some quotes have been cut for clarity's sake.
Disclaimer: I went onto the Internet for the first time in 1999, and was raised being told to trust no one, and especially not the ones you can't recognize or see their face or know their past. My simple mind at 14 being logical, I had no reason to entrust Hotmail, my first subscription ever, with my real name or my address. I got into the habit of using pseudonyms just about everywhere on the Internet since I couldn't see or get to know who was actually running the sites I wanted, or had to subscribe to. Even my first Mac was paid in cash and I refused to provide an email address, but finally had to tone down these principles a bit as I wanted to buy applications for my just-won iPod Touch. Daily, I try to use the credit card only as necessary, to keep a "healthy" credit rating, as I am telling my customers at the bank.

I am currently working at a major bank's call center. In other words, I am the random guy you may speak to if you want to activate a credit card, open an account, transfer funds, etc. In other words, I have access to tons of personal data, tens of different customers a day handing me their personal data, SIN, PIN code, checksum digits, complete address, phone numbers, account numbers. I also do sales pitches for a product I don't even trust myself. Staying in line with my beliefs, if the customer resents his data being potentially handled and stored (many customers actually understand "sold", for some reason, probably because the US has no effective law to curb private data trade and this country is also keen on aggressive telemarketing tactics) in the US, I never give him or her the scripted rebuttal, as I would have done the exact same thing as they are. If I can't remove the product, I go to great length to actually kill it, asking the customer's agreement for each step and making sure he or she's still happy with the way I dealt with their concern. I may lose a sale, but I will gain integrity points. Same goes when I suggested the penalty for an employee being caught copying data should be harsher. I was caught texting on my phone while on a call. Phone was confiscated, forensic-ed, and handed back to me by a smiling supervisors. Text messages, pictures, notes, nothing had even a remote link to customer's data.

Originally Posted by Tech198

Google is an advertiser ........ that info is profitable ......

Most break privacy down in all sorts ........ one person may say "I don't want Google to know where i go go online", while others just say "i don't give out CC details to Google."

How do you think Google makes money ? This is why all their stuff (web dev tracking etc.. is free)

As far as I am concerned, I chose to pay for my email service rather than rely on anything of Google side for searching the Internet and having a Youtube account with entirely fake details.

I would be curious to know how many of Google's criticizers do use GMail.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

(...)
There is nothing else that information has ANY use for. Google dont sell it - we know they dont. The same as Apple dont sell info collected on iAds, and Facebook dont sell info on your likes.

So you know that, hm? And how can you be so sure? Are you working there, at any significant level?

(...)
So. I'll ask the question again in a slightly different way just in case people still dont get it.

Google knows you like Tennis, and use it to show Tennis ads to you. Why is that a problem? At what point is that putting your life in danger, or causing distress to you? It's no different to sticking an advert for a taxi company at a bus stop.

The bus stop ad doesn't look above my shoulder to see what I am typing on my phone. It doesn't know I am feeling like an ass for failing an exam. It doesn't know I am going to play a tennis match because I was fired and just want to cool off not thinking about the rent to come, and that I normally don't play tennis. One doesn't have to be in imminent danger to feel threatened.

If you're really that paranoid about your personal info that you avoid the likes of Google, Facebook and Apple you really shouldn't be on the internet.
(...)

What a silly claim. Back in 1999 we still had nice Internet access, we got the same ********s of spam

Originally Posted by supercoolmanchu

Sure, sure... and those mobsters are really just nice guys not doing anybody any harm. Since they let you 'wet your beak' and see some user metrics via their tool on your site, I question the objectivity of your post. You're happy getting a piece of the action, good for you, bad for all of us. Poodle is perpetually on the wrong side of internet ethics and have been caught time and time again doing shady garbage. Further, if your websites lack a disclaimer that you use Google Metrics to suck visitor data and don't give detailed specifics about which data is collected, then you too are on the wrong side of user privacy as well.

(...)
That's pure crazy talk. Google uses private data to generate almost all it's revenue and profit. They're not trying to tweak any usage trends on the net, they're trying to tweak their data sucking efforts for maximum benefit at the expense of individual privacy. Any perceived benefit you or the public at large thinks they are getting, is an illusion and a PR effort to obfuscate what they are taking. The smartest thing they ever did was come up with a dumb little cutesy name to cover their not so cute sounding methods.

It's also no coincidence that Android versions continue the same pre-school, cutesy imagery.
Google: "Thats not bulls**t you're eating, see it's called Jelly Bean and Gingerbread! Yum yum, eat it up!"

Why the continued calculated effort to make their software seem to 'taste' so good? Are people really easily fooled by totally superficial childish imagery... well considering my general lack of faith in humanity... I'll recuse myself from answering my own question.
(...)

Interesting analysis you make. And noticed how everything invariably has a candy-color to it, and bears a pastry or candy name?
Of Hunger and Happiness
Have you also noticed the kid's environment Google employees work in? Just to make them forget about the true nature of what's going on behind executive's closed doors.

Originally Posted by Renzatic

Out of curiosity, what kind of information do you think Google has on you? Do they sell your home street address to security companies? Do they sell your name to clothing stores? Do they know what kind of car you drive? Do they know your favorite food?

Do you think there's a file somewhere in Google's databases with your real name, and all the information about you anyone would ever want to know down to your social security number, credit history? And they just...you know...sell it to advertisers?

Just have a look at the "free" services they provide to know what they may have on you. They may not sell my name to clothing stores, but sell my size so these stores know I'm a skinny dude with taste for clean-cut Spanish and Italian clothing.

As for your other questions, yes, and indeed, yes. Ever heard of medical records and financial data?

Originally Posted by Oletros

Can you point any single infraction for selling or giving away data?

Usually one is innocent unless proven otherwise. However, suspicions against Google are too big to ignore.

Originally Posted by AustinIllini

(...)
I defend corporations as they have the right to make money at all costs and i trust them to do that and only that. That's why they exist. Unless the government forces a company to keep information private, I believe any corporation will sell information for money.
(...)

They have the right to make money, sure, but also surely not "at all costs". In the wild, nature shows us that parasites who kill their host have to diversify them and reproduce quickly and in very large numbers to stay afloat. On the other hand, symbiosis allows one to piggy-back upon the other without causing any significant concern.

The US government has no interest in forcing companies to keep info private. It is secretly happy that eager companies are keeping citizens used to be raped, making the job simpler for it afterwards as it passed freedom-killing laws such as the Patriot act, and recently this ultra-secure datacenter in Nevada's desert designed to intercept, store and crack open every single piece of communication being sent across the country and even coming from outside.

Originally Posted by samcraig

No. But from iOS - they have.

No. It was a made-up pseudo-scandal from Apple users who may already happily keep on using GMail and other G's services on the side.

Originally Posted by supercoolmanchu

(...)
So privacy violations are harmless if the data stolen is insignificant? IS that the same as it's ok to kill people under a certain height? OK to steal under a certain value? They will learn their lesson? Do you believe the punishment offset the value of information they broke the law to acquire? I think that's a pretty big leap of both reason and faith.
(...)

What law are you actually referring to? The US has NO privacy laws. US government has nixed what remained of them about 11 years ago.

(...)
Maybe you are innocently ignorant of Google's history.
(...)

I'd take an update on Google's history, please, beyond what we already know.

(...)
Fact: Apple and Microsoft haven't broken into any third party software that I own to gleam my data. Fact: Google has.
(...)

They haven't been caught yet, but any company asking real details is suspect to my eyes. They just don't need it. Google was caught just because it was so big and blatant. And because reaping personal details is their main business.

(...)
I'm glad you brought this up, I almost put it into my last post. However this doesn't help your point. Apple had one privacy slip-up, and the full details of which tend to support their side and story.
People should be cautious of their data with Apple because of this, but because of Google's continued behavior people shouldn't trust them at all. The details of their crime, do not help their side of the story.
(...)

Apple can be done without for consumers. But Google, hardly so. For the average, uninformed person, there are simply no other single provider able to provide access to so many services under one metaphoric roof. They would have to get many providers, and most aren't willing to put the extra effort in it. This IMHO would explain why so many people brainlessly install Chrome in lieu of Firefox, even if FF started much earlier and is available for more systems and in more languages than Chrome.

I did it, but it came to a cost. Email and hosting are in Switzerland, VPN is Swedish, contacts and agenda are American, browsing is Dutch, Danish or American, news is Spanish...

If Google's income relies on selling 'ads'. Why all the demographic collection? It's totally unnecessary to putting ninja store ads on the page when I search for my ninja supplies.

When you start a large 'ad' campaign with Google, they throw in periodic demographic reports for the length of the 'ad' buy. Your idea that selling this data once would put them out of business is totally silly. Google gives more complete data to bigger customers, the more you pay the more comprehensive and specific the info. Demographics is also a separate industry to advertising (I'm guessing this is news to you), though this is Google's primary cover for saying they don't sell your data, they only sell 'ads' (that just happen to come the personal data… wink, wink).

Couldn't have said it more clearly.

(...)
It's not like Google is an 'ad' power house because of their incredible advertising abilities and effectiveness. Most online ads are totally ignored and ineffective, this is well known and a well studied phenonminon. Network TV is still more valuable and effective. What Google offers above TV networks is more extensive private demographic data, that these companies can also use for their TV ads. This is not hidden knowledge at all.

Indeed, and I do rely on triple ad-filtering: one at the router's level, one at the system level, one at the browser level, each with different lists. My browsing is mostly free of any ads, not because I don't want to support the website's owner, but because I just don't trust these ads agencies. The only one left are porn-related, and I don't care much about them since I know Google is not behind them. And more pragmatically, because it frees up valuable screen estate on a 13".

(...)
So they tipped off their partners about a FBI raid, but gave up all the info anyway?
Where's the character upside in that.

The FBI was looking into privacy violations and Google made it harder to investigate somehow?

They just wanted to appear as if they were on the consumer's side, as others said, just a PR exercise. I strongly suspect they just don't give a sh¡t.

Originally Posted by Oletros

Enlighten us, what Google tracks and what info they sell?

Just have a look at their products: GMail reads your emails, Google Desktop knows your private file's contents, Chrome drives you around the web, including on non-Adsense sites, then if they can lay up a fiber network not only they'll drive you, but will know everything that's flowing in their pipe (and the bigger the pipe, the larger the amount of data you'll put in, including from non-Google software), Google Images knows what you want to see, so is YouTube, Picasa knows what you snap, G. News knows what news interest you, G. Books knows what you like to read, G. Documents knows what you're working on, G. Agenda knows how your day is organized, G. Translate knows what you're reading and what culture you're interested in, G. Scholar knows what you're studying, G. Wallet knows your financial data.

There are simply too many here for any person in his right mind to trust Google is only serving ads. As supercoolmanchu put it, "We do know that Google goes to extraordinary lengths to acquire personal data over both Microsoft and Apple.".

Originally Posted by MH01

Millions and millions trust the BBC.

This is a state-run broadcaster that has no intent to make profit, so doesn't qualify as a company. Oh wait. This state is one of the most citizen-spying state. Oh well.

In the end, this whole debate may prove futile. The US already has the capability to spy on each and every US-dweller as well as foreigners when the communication enters US soil or just cross is, just as it does invading traveller's privacy just flying over the territory on a path they have no choice but to follow. Google, Apple, Microsoft or any other private company are small players compared to the US government. In all, we're pretty much screwed.

[maxosx]

Apple, Google, Yahoo & others have already collected your personal data, read your emails & continue to track you "to improve their products".

Then they sell it all for their benefit. They're all the same. If some people perceive Apple as less threatening, it's only because they are in denial.

If you _must_ know the truth, they are small players when compared to personal data (read: big data) companies.

www.acxiom.com knows more about you than anyone in the world.

Privacy? It's a myth. Like it or not. That's not gloom & doom... It's fact.

Save yourself some time, get out of denial.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by Cubytus

TJust have a look at the "free" services they provide to know what they may have on you. They may not sell my name to clothing stores, but sell my size so these stores know I'm a skinny dude with taste for clean-cut Spanish and Italian clothing.

God forbid they know random dot 828344762 aged 25-40 tends to jump from Macrumors to clothing clothing stores to shop for size 32 pants. Hell, with that much information, I'm surprised they don't know how many times you scratched your right ass cheek when you woke up this morning.

Google is getting creepy. O_O

As for your other questions, yes, and indeed, yes. Ever heard of medical records and financial data?

Yeah, I've heard of them. What makes you think Google has access to them and/or monetizes them in any way whatsoever? Last time I checked, HIPAA doesn't allow access to your individualized medical records for purposes of marketing or advertisements. Most they'll likely have access to is an aggregated list. They try to access any more, and they'll be picked up and making lame excuses in front of congress faster than you can say "Larry Page is a bastard".

----------

Originally Posted by maxosx

www.acxiom.com knows more about you than anyone in the world.

You've also got LexisNexis and other similar sites. All it takes is someone tipping you off on where to start and a little money for service fees, and you can easily figure out anything you want to know about someone.

There are sites out there that have far, far more on you than whatever inconsequential information Google has collected over the years. And what's even scarier is the vast amount that's out there is public domain. Has been for years and years. The internet just makes it quicker and easier to find it all.

[Cubytus]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

God forbid they know random dot 828344762 aged 25-40 tends to jump from Macrumors to clothing clothing stores to shop for size 32 pants. Hell, with that much information, I'm surprised they don't know how many times you scratched your right ass cheek when you woke up this morning.

Google is getting creepy. O_O

That's about what they mey have on me since I only use their search engine and don't hand any true info, as far as I know. However people who *do* subscribe to their other services will feel concerned. And rightfully so.

Yeah, I've heard of them. What makes you think Google has access to them and/or monetizes them in any way whatsoever? Last time I checked, HIPAA doesn't allow access to your individualized medical records for purposes of marketing or advertisements. Most they'll likely have access to is an aggregated list. They try to access any more, and they'll be picked up and making lame excuses in front of congress faster than you can say "Larry Page is a bastard".[COLOR="#808080"]

Excuses don't cut it. Just stop doing it. I will trust them when they will provide undeniable proof they can't access any personal data, as SpiderOak does.