Google Ranked Worst for Privacy

[WinterWeaver]

Linky: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6740075.stm

Should I be concerned, since I use GMail, Google Documents, Google Spreadsheets, Calendar etc.?
I use all of these quite extensively, for both business and personal stuff.

ta,

WW

[LaRoza]

I was reading other articles, including the one above and came to the conclusion that it is safe. They just save information, it is not like they are distributing it. They are ranked worst for privacy, but I know of no cases where privacy was breached.

[the.dark.lord]

I was reading other articles, including the one above and came to the conclusion that it is safe. They just save information, it is not like they are distributing it. They are ranked worst for privacy, but I know of no cases where privacy was breached.

Why the hell do they want to save it for? So they can sell it when they want to?

[LaRoza]

They save it for two years I believe, which is longer than other companies, like Yahoo. They all save it, its just that Google is bigger and has many services.

Of course, I don't recommend any online service for sensitive information, except encrypted e-mail.

Did I offend you with my statement? You seem agitated.

[WinterWeaver]

I think he might be more offended by Google... not you ^_^

[LaRoza]

When you deal with any large company, you forfeit some privacy.

I think Google is safe for day to day use.

[WinterWeaver]

I guess that's a good reason for not using too many online based documentation apps, like google spreadsheets. I admit, I love the concept of being able to access my documents from any location, at any time (so long you have a internet connection), but it's not good if it's not protected enough. I've got a lot of Project info etc on google lol.

I guess I should just get a Notebook and keep my spreadies on there, right?

however... I really doubt that Google will just arbly hand these documents to other parties... errr... I hope lol.... not like anyone will be interested in some low key projects and ideas lol

[forcesofhabit]

Can someone recommend a free e-mail service that doesn't have privacy concerns?

[LaRoza]

You could encrypt you messages before sending them, this would work with any e-mail service. There are services which are supposed to be very secure, but I have never used them so I can speak for them.

[the.dark.lord]

They save it for two years I believe, which is longer than other companies, like Yahoo. They all save it, its just that Google is bigger and has many services.

Of course, I don't recommend any online service for sensitive information, except encrypted e-mail.

Did I offend you with my statement? You seem agitated.

Hey, if I kind of ranted I'm sorry. I'm not in the least bit offended, just very passionate sometimes :D

[Kimm]

Can someone recommend a free e-mail service that doesn't have privacy concerns?

You can always host your own email service ;)

Anyway, I have a friend that doesn't like google because they save data, but I don't agree with him. As you have already concluded, google, just as every other online service, saves data about their users. The only difference is that google actually use it for something useful (personalized search results for example).

IMHO, it is OK for a company to do this, as long as it is a computer taking care of all of it :)

[fuscia]

Should I be concerned, since I use GMail, Google Documents, Google Spreadsheets, Calendar etc.?


only if you're a child molesting spy from al qaeda.

[WinterWeaver]

only if you're a child molesting spy from al qaeda.

Rofl! True.... I was just a wee bit worried cause I have lots of business sensitive data on google.

[brim4brim]

Yeah the only place it might get dodgy I suppose is if you came up with an idea to solve world hunger (or do something cool on a computer) and google wanted to patent it. If you sent it to a friend (I don't know why you would) then I'm not sure if their privacy agreement allows them to view your idea and patent it before you or whatever.

Overall I'm not that concerned. I'll worry when someone smarter than me has his ideas stolen by Google.

[MOS95B]

Sounds like another instance where the biggest issue would be "EBKAC". If it's sensitive material, don't store it where it would be vulnerable, like an online service.

Even if Google was forced to reveal any information, they csan only reveal what the user puts there....

In my mind, some people worry too much about how secure a particular service is, instead of worrying about how secure they, as a user of said service, are....

[LaRoza]

It may be in the future the law that such companies save e-mails and such for legal reasons.

[helliewm]

Try www.fastmail.com for email. They are brilliant. I have used them for several years now.

Helen

[LaRoza]

Try www.fastmail.com for email. They are brilliant. I have used them for several years now.

Helen

http://www.fastmail.fm/ ?

[maniacmusician]

Just make sure you read the Terms of Use and whatnot before loading sensitive data on there. If you find suspicious things in the terms, campaign to have them changed before you load sensitive data on there. If google starts violating its terms of use, there will be a massive public class-action lawsuit that will permanently damage their image...they're not going to do that.

[igknighted]

I guess that's a good reason for not using too many online based documentation apps, like google spreadsheets. I admit, I love the concept of being able to access my documents from any location, at any time (so long you have a internet connection), but it's not good if it's not protected enough. I've got a lot of Project info etc on google lol.

I guess I should just get a Notebook and keep my spreadies on there, right?

however... I really doubt that Google will just arbly hand these documents to other parties... errr... I hope lol.... not like anyone will be interested in some low key projects and ideas lol

Why not, since you run linux, set up a home ftp server. It would let you acess the documents you want from anywhere, but also keep your data secure. Just like google, you could give others who need it the password to get to them. If privacy is your convern, this type of setup is the way to go.

[WinterWeaver]

Why not, since you run linux, set up a home ftp server. It would let you acess the documents you want from anywhere, but also keep your data secure. Just like google, you could give others who need it the password to get to them. If privacy is your convern, this type of setup is the way to go.

lol :) ... I wouldn't even know where to start to do something like that :P

At least it seems that it's not really something to be concerned about too much, I'll just keep highly sensitive data local, and keep using google for the other stuff :)

Thanks for all the input

[ThinkBuntu]

At one time, 98% of my personal email was stored on Google servers. Two months ago, I downloaded all of it via Thunderbird, and now my email is deleted automatically as soon as I've downloaded it. The same goes for my small business email...screw the corporate stuff, I just leave that online.

I think it's a bad policy to have anything remotely close to being as personal as the average email archives resting on someone else's server.

And as for Google Docs, etc? Those are a last resort when I'm writing something away from home without my own computer or storage, and contain only a couple unused college papers. I think I actually "published" one on their for kicks.

[RAV TUX]

Google ranked 'worst' on privacy
Google has the worst privacy policy of popular net firms, says a report. Rights group Privacy International rated the search giant as "hostile" to privacy in a report ranking web firms by how they handle personal data.
The group said Google was leading a "race to the bottom" among net firms many of whom had policies that did little to substantially protect users.
In response Google said the report was mistaken and that it worked hard to keep user data confidential.
Hostile approach
The report by the veteran cyber rights group is the result of six months' research which scrutinised 20 popular net firms to find out how they handle the personal information users gave up when they started using such services.
None of the firms featured in the report got a "privacy friendly" rating.
Yahoo and AOL were said to have "substantial threats" to privacy as were Facebook and Hi5 for the allegedly poor way they dealt with user data.
Microsoft, one place higher in the rankings than these four firms, was described as having "serious lapses" in its privacy policy.
Other net sites, such as BBC.com, eBay and Last.fm were described in the report as "generally privacy aware but in need of improvement".
But Privacy International singled put Google at the bottom of its rankings for what the group called its "numerous deficiencies and hostilities" to privacy.
"We are aware that the decision to place Google at the bottom of the ranking is likely to be controversial," the group said in the report.
Privacy International placed Google at the bottom of its ranking because of the sheer amount of data it gathers about users and their activities; because its privacy policies are incomplete and for its poor record of responding to complaints.
"While a number of companies share some of these negative elements, none comes close to achieving status as an endemic threat to privacy," read the report.
Responding to the report Nicole Wong, general counsel for Google, said in a statement: "We are disappointed with Privacy International's report which is based on numerous inaccuracies and misunderstandings about our services."
Ms Wong added: "We recognise that user trust is central to our business and Google aggressively protects our users' privacy."
Privacy International said it planned to release a more detailed report in September produced after detailed consultation with the firms covered in the first draft.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/6740075.stm

Published: 2007/06/11 10:10:39 GMT


An Open Letter to Google
10/06/2007

June 10, 2007
Eric Schmidt,
CEO, Google Inc.

1600 Amphitheatre Parkway

Mountain View, CA 94043
USA
Dear Mr. Schmidt,
You may be aware that Privacy International yesterday published its first privacy ranking of leading companies operating on the Internet. Google Inc performed very poorly, scoring lowest among the other major companies that we surveyed.
I am writing to express my concern not just at this unfortunate result, but also at communications between Google Inc and members of the media during the period immediately prior to publication of our report. Two European journalists have independently told us that Google representatives have contacted them with the claim that "Privacy International has a conflict of interest regarding Microsoft". I presume this was motivated because Microsoft scored an overall better result than Google in the rankings.
Let me state here on the record that in the seventeen years of our existence, no company has ever made such a claim. Privacy International is a fiercely independent organization that has never shown fear nor favour. Again for the record, we have been fierce and relentless critics of Microsoft since our inception as a watchdog. You will see for example we that publicly supported the EU Commission investigation into Microsoft (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2010839.stm), that we nominated Microsoft for the US Big Brother Award in 2003 (http://www.privacyinternational.org/bigbrother/us2003/), that we awarded Microsoft the "Worst Corporate Invader" award at the 1999 US Big Brother Awards, that we publicly accused Microsoft of subverting its software security (http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990906S0003), that we co-authored a critical submission to the US Federal Trade Commission against Microsoft (http://www.epic.org/privacy/consumer/microsoft/ordercomments.html), and that in 2001 we filed a joint complaint to the US Federal Trade Commission against Microsoft, alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices. (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech/0,1000000183,2092011,00.htm)
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. I can confirm that he joined our Advisory Board well before he was headhunted by Microsoft. At the time he was the director of a leading UK non-governmental organization and had more than six years extensive involvement in the work of Privacy International. He is a decent, skilled and honorable man who upon his appointment with Microsoft offered us his resignation. We refused to accept it, and he continues to serve on the Board in a private capacity. As an exceptionally skilled IT and security expert he is a superb resource in our day-to-day work across many fields of privacy. To infer that he in any way influences our decisions with regard to Microsoft is not just inaccurate but it is also insulting.
Privacy International is and has always fought hard for its independence, often to our own great expense. With the very rare exception of expenses sponsorship for important public events we receive no corporate money, and certainly at no point have we received any from Microsoft.
Can I be so bold as to suggest that your company's actions stem from sour grapes that you achieved the lowest ranking amongst the Internet giants? We have no specific axe to grind with Google. It is one of many companies demonstrating a poor privacy performance, and in assessing that performance we are acting solely with the intention of raising public awareness. And while it is true that we have in the past taken legal action against Google's Gmail service (http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/internet/gmail-complaint.pdf), it is equally the case that we have campaigned against Amazon (http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-61938) and eBay (http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-542384), both of which, regardless of this history, scored higher than Google in the rankings.
So do we have a vested interest in attacking Google? No. Some of the people we work with have Microsoft connections, but we work with many thousands of people as partners, collaborators and managers. One of our trustees, for example, works for a law firm that has Microsoft as one of its many clients. We agreed with this person that a legal document should be drawn up expressly fire-walling his professional from his private involvement with Privacy International. We socialise with Microsoft employees, but then again we socialise with employees of the UK Home Office, which in a recent celebrated chapter attempted to destroy our reputation following critical work on the UK ID card proposals. We are happy to reach out to anyone, regardless of their affiliation.
I believe an apology from you is in order, but if you cannot deliver this then I think you should reflect carefully on the actions of your representatives before embarking on what I believe amounts to a smear campaign. As with Microsoft, eBay and any other organization we are more than happy to work with you to help resolve the many privacy challenges for Google that our report has highlighted.
Yours sincerely
Simon Davies,
Director
Privacy International
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-553964

[loserboy]

I saw that... you think it's true?

maybe someone is picking on google, i thought they were the semi-good guys?

[GStubbs43]

repost. :) (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=470683)

[RAV TUX]

repost. :) (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=470683)I didn't see that, but that thread appears to be taking a direction of which is the best e-mail client to use.

I would like more of a general discussion about privacy international and their findings.


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. I can confirm that he joined our Advisory Board well before he was headhunted by Microsoft. At the time he was the director of a leading UK non-governmental organization and had more than six years extensive involvement in the work of Privacy International. He is a decent, skilled and honorable man who upon his appointment with Microsoft offered us his resignation. We refused to accept it, and he continues to serve on the Board in a private capacity. As an exceptionally skilled IT and security expert he is a superb resource in our day-to-day work across many fields of privacy. To infer that he in any way influences our decisions with regard to Microsoft is not just inaccurate but it is also insulting.
Privacy International is and has always fought hard for its independence, often to our own great expense. With the very rare exception of expenses sponsorship for important public events we receive no corporate money, and certainly at no point have we received any from Microsoft.
So do we have a vested interest in attacking Google? No. Some of the people we work with have Microsoft connections, but we work with many thousands of people as partners, collaborators and managers. One of our trustees, for example, works for a law firm that has Microsoft as one of its many clients. We agreed with this person that a legal document should be drawn up expressly fire-walling his professional from his private involvement with Privacy International. We socialise with Microsoft employees, but then again we socialise with employees of the UK Home Office, which in a recent celebrated chapter attempted to destroy our reputation following critical work on the UK ID card proposals. We are happy to reach out to anyone, regardless of their affiliation.No matter what they say here I find it highly questionable that they can remain non-bias about Microsoft. I think the Microsoft connection is a serious hole in Privacy internationals role.

[PriceChild]

*merges threads*

Little request to stay on topic of privacy, and not "which is the best email client" please :)