backtop


Print 24 comment(s) - last by Solandri.. on Feb 1 at 7:36 PM

Microsoft is pushing its alternative services

Microsoft is taking a chance to poke Google in the eye during all the concern and hubbub around Google changes to its privacy policies. On the Official Microsoft Blog, Microsoft even offers links to some stories on other websites that talk about concerns and complaints users of Google have with the privacy policy changes. It's clear that Microsoft is set to capitalize on Google's woes as much as possible.
 
The author of the post on the Microsoft blog is Frank X. Shaw, Corporate Vice President for Corporate Communications at Microsoft. Shaw writes that is clear from the coverage that consumers are looking for alternatives to Google services because they're concerned about their information. Shaw writes that Google's changes make it harder, not easier for users of its services to control their information.
 
Then Shaw takes the opportunity to promote Microsoft's alternative services that directly compare with Google services. The services Microsoft is talking up include Hotmail, Bing, Office 365, and Internet Explorer. Microsoft is also set to run ads touting its alternative to Google's services in major newspapers this week all around the country as a way to remind users that it also offers services similar to what Google has.
 
Google is taking a lot of heat over the changes in its privacy policies, and has even received a letter from Congress asking for clarification on the pending changes. Google says it's not changing anything, and is simply consolidating the policies for about 60 different services it offers into one document. Google maintains that its goal for the changes is to make it easier for users of various Google services to have their information available to them no matter what service they're using.

Some fear this is a way for Google to access more of their personal information for marketing purposes. However, Google is very clear that it is keeping all your private information private.

Source: Microsoft



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Google = evil
By letmepicyou on 2/1/2012 11:30:44 AM , Rating: 1
It would seem to me this violates their mantra they used so frequently when they came into being..."Do no evil". It would seem that one could define evil as simply "something which you would do to others but you would not done to you". This seems to me a violation of that policy. It seems to me that if the users of google feel that evil is being done to them, then that perception is all that matters. Time to wake up and smell the silicon.




RE: Google = evil
By mofo3k on 2/1/2012 11:57:37 AM , Rating: 2
What exactly is Google doing that is "evil" in this situation? I don't get why this term is being thrown around over this consolidation of privacy policies. They're still not selling your information to anyone and you still own the rights everything you create/upload to their services.


RE: Google = evil
By ClownPuncher on 2/1/2012 12:15:58 PM , Rating: 3
I got an email detailing the update of Google's privacy policies and I don't use any google products. Do they just spam email it, how did they get my email address?


RE: Google = evil
By BastiWebMaster on 2/1/2012 1:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
Do you by any chance use YouTube?


RE: Google = evil
By ClownPuncher on 2/1/2012 2:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
Not with that account.


RE: Google = evil
By Trisped on 2/1/2012 4:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
You probably have a Google account tied to that email address.
YouTube is a good possibility, a forwarded GMail account, though you could also check http://www.google.com/options/ to see if you recognize anything.

The email also might have some details as to why it was sent to you.


RE: Google = evil
By AntiM on 2/1/2012 12:19:31 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, I'm going to have to side with Google on this one. MS is just fear mongering.


RE: Google = evil
By The Raven on 2/1/2012 3:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
MS fear mongering?? That is just unheard of!

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/microso...


RE: Google = evil
By kleinma on 2/1/2012 2:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
They may not sell your information to 3rd parties, but they act as the middle man for 3rd parties to market to you, using all the information they do collect. Not exactly evil, but it is probably very scary what kind of personal profile google has on you. They may rival FBI type profiles.

Of course it is all a moot point considering everyone freely gives out all their information on facebook which is constantly being data mined and going who the hell knows where.


RE: Google = evil
By Trisped on 2/1/2012 4:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
Though if you read the privacy policy Google makes it clear that they don't share your information. In most cases your information is not personally identifiable anyways.


RE: Google = evil
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 5:07:14 PM , Rating: 1
That's like saying Val-Pak is "evil" because they got my address and send me a free coupon book a few times a year lol. Why do people flip out and make extreme exaggerations when it comes to Google?


RE: Google = evil
By kleinma on 2/1/2012 6:04:29 PM , Rating: 3
Val-Pak was evil before being evil was cool.


RE: Google = evil
By Solandri on 2/1/2012 7:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
Unlike most companies, Google makes it clear up-front that that's what they're doing. And if there's a service which they provide where this could be questionable (e.g. location services on phones), they make the default choice the one which better protects your privacy. You keep your privacy by default, and have to opt in to give it up. You don't give up your privacy by default and have to opt out to preserve it.

That's a great deal more respectful of people's privacy than nearly any other company I've seen. While the ideal would be if they did no snooping of your data, then the services they provide wouldn't be free. The dream of a free service which is completely respectful of your privacy is just that - a dream. It's not economically self-sustainable.

Whether you're willing to give up that little bit of privacy to use these services for free is a decision for each individual to make. I may not like the decision most people make regarding this, but if I'm to be respectful of their privacy that's really none of my business.


RE: Google = evil
By drycrust3 on 2/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Google = evil
By inperfectdarkness on 2/1/2012 1:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Google = evil
By bah12 on 2/1/2012 3:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
Ironically posting a link to youtube :) I suppose.


RE: Google = evil
By The Raven on 2/1/2012 3:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
lol, yeah it is a choice to have ads or not. You can go with a paid mail server or your own dedicated one. I like having the choice to use gmail for various purposes (like pirating stuff ;-) Hello SOPA! Come shut gmail down.) But what I find disconcerting is that people just shrug this off one way or the other. It is an important choice to make. There is a lot of info in a person's inbox and is is quite a bargain to get all of that for the cost of a free google acct. We shouldn't sell ourselves so short if at all. I'm just saying that these things need to be considered, but rarely are.


RE: Google = evil
By Trisped on 2/1/2012 4:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
I guess this is the problem with not everyone being a programmer. Yes there is potential for wrong doing, but this is true with ANY email service. What Google does, and other advertisers do, is make a list of words which appear on the page, then see if any of those words match keywords on their ads.

No middle man, no logging, no way to reasonably reproduce the contents of the message. Heck, when I first started using email I got more ads for Spam (usually spiced ham) because I would clear it out daily, than anything else.


RE: Google = evil
By Solandri on 2/1/2012 7:26:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's a subtle distinction I don't think most people understand, nor am I entirely sure yet if it even matters.

The "creepiness" of someone reading your email is because of the idea that there's another person out there who has read your private email and knows stuff about you which you'd like to be private. If it's done by a computer which (1) has no idea and doesn't care who you are, (2) is only looking for certain keywords and isn't really capable of understanding what's written, and (3) promptly forgets everything aside from some summary statistics, much of the creepiness disappears.

Still, I'm not sure if that really excuses this type of thing. Say the police developed a black box machine which could read everyone's postal mail unopened. It flags only the ones whose content indicates criminal activity. It promptly forgets what it read in the other letters (and being a computer, it can forget perfectly).

I'd still say that was an unreasonable invasion of privacy even though no human has invaded anyone's privacy. I can tell that it's different from having a person read everyone's mail. But I'm not really sure how it's different or where I would redraw the line between what's allowed and what's not.

Disclaimer: I use gmail, and don't really have a problem with their computers reading my mails for the purpose of targeted ads.


RE: Google = evil
By sigmatau on 2/1/2012 2:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
A company that I work at, one of the biggest health care providers, revoked the certificate for google's home page. Maybe it is an oversight.


RE: Google = evil
By Trisped on 2/1/2012 4:51:45 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they want to track what you are searching for?

It makes sense to me that a company with access to lots of personal data would want to prevent people from sending that data out (knowingly or otherwise) to insecure locations.

A certificate is only going to control SSL encrypted pages. Or did you mean something else?


RE: Google = evil
By Solandri on 2/1/2012 7:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
gmail.com defaults to an https (SSL encrypted) page. I don't think you can even access it anymore via unencrypted http. Google has actually been doing the right thing, making as many of their services available via https, to prevent snooping of network traffic.

Revoking the certificate would make it painful to access gmail (you'd have to manually approve the page every time it loaded/refreshed).


Yes, clarification please
By DtTall on 2/1/2012 12:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
I would just like to know what this means functionally for how they are serve ads. Things that are on my mind:

- Will Latitude data now be incorporated into the logic for Gmail ads?
- Could content from my Google Docs trigger banner ads?
- Will email correspondence now impact search result ads?
- Is this really why Google Health was killed?

I guess I just want to understand is all of this simply being smashed together? They are clearly downplaying the change, but it is a pretty significant change from a data information perspective.




RE: Yes, clarification please
By Trisped on 2/1/2012 4:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even read the new polices?

They are PRIVACY polices, not new product development maps or lists of features or products.
quote:
Location information
When you use a location-enabled Google service, we may collect and process information about your actual location, like GPS signals sent by a mobile device. We may also use various technologies to determine location, such as sensor data from your device that may, for example, provide information on nearby Wi-Fi access points and cell towers.
quote:
How we use information we collect We use the information we collect from all of our services to provide, maintain, protect and improve them, to develop new ones, and to protect Google and our users. We also use this information to offer you tailored content – like giving you more relevant search results and ads.

...

We use information collected from cookies and other technologies, like pixel tags, to improve your user experience and the overall quality of our services. For example, by saving your language preferences, we’ll be able to have our services appear in the language you prefer. When showing you tailored ads, we will not associate a cookie or anonymous identifier with sensitive categories, such as those based on race, religion, sexual orientation or health .

We may combine personal information from one service with information, including personal information, from other Google services – for example to make it easier to share things with people you know. We will not combine DoubleClick cookie information with personally identifiable information unless we have your opt-in consent.

We will ask for your consent before using information for a purpose other than those that are set out in this Privacy Policy.


As for your points:
-Location data can only be used in location-enabled services. I expect that while Google could provide location aware ads (which I think would be a good thing for local businesses and me as a consumer), I would not expect these location aware ads in my Android apps which are not also location aware (unless Android has a centralized ad service, which I would then expect to have an option to turn on/off location aware ads).
-Google Docs: Unless there is a privacy policy for Google Docs which would supersede the main one, I would not expect Google to share or monitor your document information. That being said, web ads are often generated based on the content of the page, so if Google wanted to provide you this feature (doc content enabled ads) they could, as long as your information was not shared or logged. That being the case, you would have to opt in for this since some doc content is more sensitive then others.
-What ever shows up on the page affects ads. I was reviewing my spam mail before trashing it and saw many ads for spam (spiced ham). So in short, your emails already affect you ads.
-I was told Google Health was killed because it was too similar to an existing, paid product from another company. To avoid a lawsuit (and the cost and bad publicity) Google killed the project. I thought it was too bad because the Google Health project seemed like a great idea, even if the edges were ruff. At any rate, if the project was still alive today it would have its own privacy policy to complement this one. Also, this privacy policy makes it clear that medical information is treated as sensitive.

This is not a significant change from a "data information perspective" as Google services or polices have not been changed. Information is still shared between accounts on different Google services, as it was previous to the change. Tools to control how your information is used and shared are still available.

The big change brought by this privacy policy update is that they are easier to read and understand, and you don't have to read 60 of them if you use all of Google's services. Plus, if a new service comes out, you know any information you use in the service will be covered by the same policy.

Personally I find this refreshing, especially after reading so many other privacy polices.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki