From where I sit, and knowing that we are the product on FB and Google... I'd say that their business plan is a privacy blunder. Ok.. maybe not a blunder since it's intentional. If Google wants to target me with ads, then fine, target me during a search for a product. Not for days afterward. But that's minor compared to FB and it's active pushing for more info from users and by default, everything being public.
Facebook, Google execs cough to their biggest privacy blunders
Facebook, Google and Microsoft spent a few minutes today discussing at this year's RSA conference in San Francisco how they attempt to protect your privacy. El Reg asked execs present from the trio of tech giants to name their biggest privacy cockups, and surprisingly two out of the three had an answer. "Beacon might be a …
COMMENTS
-
-
Thursday 23rd April 2015 03:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
They do target you while you're searching and making your purchasing decision. The ads you get for similar (or identical) products after you've made your purchase is just Google playing their customers (people placing ads) for all they're worth.
on a totally different subject:
"...had been mode on websites...". Guys (and Gals) buy a propheshunil speeeling/grammer shecker, or make me an offer.
-
Thursday 23rd April 2015 03:11 GMT tom dial
I find it interesting to put side by side the notion that Google Glass was a privacy invader (it was) and current wild enthusiasm in the US to have every police officer wear a camera that records every encounter, many of which would be far more embarrassing than anything Glass wearers would be likely to snatch. In addition, of course, nearly everyone now carries a smart phone with a camera able at short notice to make an HD recording of anything interesting.
It seems a lot depends on context, both of the discussion and of the circumstances in which privacy might be thought invaded.
-
Thursday 23rd April 2015 08:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
I find it interesting to put side by side the notion that Google Glass was a privacy invader (it was) and current wild enthusiasm in the US to have every police officer wear a camera that records every encounter, many of which would be far more embarrassing than anything Glass wearers would be likely to snatch
If they were more embarrassing I'd question the officer what he's doing. A police officer body cam is there to provide evidence that he/she operates by the books and the rules set for him (and in my opinion that data should only be public on request and after an incident, not by default), whereas Glassholes would be filming everything in a private capacity, and that requires respecting some social rules - which nobody trusts them to do. In addition, you don't know what else lives in that device as it's made by Google - it's not technically difficult to insert something in there that would allow remote enabling so it's also a trust thing, and we already know just how well Google respected privacy until they realised it was starting to cost them money (as fewer people generously gave their data for them to sell).
-