Like I said - I agree with you that Google has crossed the line on more than one occasion but I still think some of your examples don't carry enough weight to warrant saying that Google is a lost cause with regard to privacy:
1. This one is pretty bad but my gut feeling is that it wasn't a high-level nefarious decision but a mid-level manager or engineer who went too far.
2. Devices needs to store the wifi keys in the clear, device settings are backed-up in the cloud. Storing them encrypted would require an extra password. There's probably a solution to this but are you suggesting Google has a plan to illegally login to private Wifi networks? That would be a criminal offence and definitely in tinfoil hat territory.
3. Yeah - I think that was a dickish comment and I wonder if he regretted it the minute it was out.
4. What did you expect them to say?
5. Dumb move but more a part of their desperate need to defend against Facebook. It's hard to see this as anything other an incompetent attempt to grow Buzz quickly.
Interestingly you missed out one of the stronger cases you could have made - the nymwars - which I think were an attempt to push the public/private boundary in their favour.
(Sigh. Replying to myself with a better formatted version because I can't edit the post and I never remember the arcane markup rules round here)
Like I said - I agree with you that Google has crossed the line on more than one occasion but I still think some of your examples don't carry enough weight to warrant saying that Google is a lost cause with regard to privacy:
1. This one is pretty bad but my gut feeling is that it wasn't a high-level nefarious decision but a mid-level manager or engineer who went too far.
2. Devices needs to store the wifi keys in the clear, device settings are backed-up in the cloud. Storing them encrypted would require an extra password. There's probably a solution to this but are you suggesting Google has a plan to illegally login to private Wifi networks? That would be a criminal offence and definitely in tinfoil hat territory.
3. Yeah - I think that was a dickish comment and I wonder if he regretted it the minute it was out.
4. What did you expect them to say? 5. Dumb move but more a part of their desperate need to defend against Facebook. It's hard to see this as anything other an incompetent attempt to grow Buzz quickly.
Interestingly you missed out one of the stronger cases you could have made - the nymwars - which I think were an attempt to push the public/private boundary in their favour.
Google cares deeply about your privacy. They desperately hope that the concerns of people like yourself never become mainstream - or that they never push their luck too far and the population at large becomes as cautious as some of the more tech-savvy already are.
Because almost their entire business strategy depends on people trusting them just enough.
You are a canary in the coal mine and I have no doubt that Google is very interested in your feelings about privacy for just that reason.
1. This one is pretty bad but my gut feeling is that it wasn't a high-level nefarious decision but a mid-level manager or engineer who went too far. 2. Devices needs to store the wifi keys in the clear, device settings are backed-up in the cloud. Storing them encrypted would require an extra password. There's probably a solution to this but are you suggesting Google has a plan to illegally login to private Wifi networks? That would be a criminal offence and definitely in tinfoil hat territory. 3. Yeah - I think that was a dickish comment and I wonder if he regretted it the minute it was out. 4. What did you expect them to say? 5. Dumb move but more a part of their desperate need to defend against Facebook. It's hard to see this as anything other an incompetent attempt to grow Buzz quickly.
Interestingly you missed out one of the stronger cases you could have made - the nymwars - which I think were an attempt to push the public/private boundary in their favour.