dertyfern
msg:4084654 | 10:04 am on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
This may be the first of may legal issues confronting Google given their total lack of concern about their user base privacy. I'm personally pleased to read about this.
I'm sure the true extent of privacy violations that are taking place at Google would make Buzz pale in comparison.
|
zett
msg:4084684 | 10:59 am on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
| I'm sure the true extent of privacy violations that are taking place at Google would make Buzz pale in comparison. |
|
Should the full extent of the privacy "issues" should ever come to light, there will be a lot of Buzz around it. Muhahaha.
|
J_RaD
msg:4084693 | 11:23 am on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
glad to hear it, hope its the 1st of many!
|
thegreatpretender
msg:4084742 | 12:59 pm on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
I'm sad for google. I hope they'll be more cautious next time.
|
StoutFiles
msg:4084751 | 1:20 pm on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
I would think a Harvard law student would know that Google is legally fine with anything they do. Every Google account you sign up for has a huge clause that basically says "any information you have is now ours to use".
|
dertyfern
msg:4084755 | 1:39 pm on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
| "any information you have is now ours to use". |
|
If I tell you upfront I'm going to commit fraud it doesn't make it legal. Not that Google is, but you get my point.
|
albo
msg:4084831 | 4:22 pm on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
@dertyfern Except that... Because of Gorg implicit contract with you, mentioned in a previous thread, it would almost seem impossible to look at their TOS without first agreeing to their TOS
|
dertyfern
msg:4084850 | 4:58 pm on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
albo, interesting comment. Love to read that thread--can you post?
|
Syzygy
msg:4084903 | 6:29 pm on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
I thought a class action involved numerous people, not just one person.
|
StoutFiles
msg:4084919 | 6:55 pm on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
| If I tell you upfront I'm going to commit fraud it doesn't make it legal. |
|
Haha, touche. Let's just say it would blow my mind to see Google lose a court case on this particular issue.
|
engine
msg:4084922 | 6:59 pm on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
Syzygy
It's more than one. ;) "Law firms in San Francisco and Washington, D.C.,"
|
dertyfern
msg:4084963 | 7:57 pm on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
| Let's just say it would blow my mind to see Google lose a court case on this particular issue. |
|
Sadly, I totally agree with you. They'll be saved by an army of highly paid lawyers who fall back on program terms and agreements.
These same terms are so complex, most law students wouldn't understand them. But yet the average Joe is supposed to be bound by them...
The average user will click on anything just to get their "free" web tool, video, program, you name it.
|
outland88
msg:4085204 | 12:35 am on Feb 23, 2010 (gmt 0) |
As one smart fellow said you’ll know the end is in sight when the corporations have destroyed every last vestige of privacy. Ask Tiger Woods. We’ll get back to you later once you’ve posted enough stupidity on Twitter, Facebook, or whatever place you feel everybody needs to know. Apparently big business has a willing partner in most people. They see no evil because they’re blind. Then comes the infamous line you can’t do anything about it. Plus I see no harm in it.
|
JS_Harris
msg:4085350 | 5:39 am on Feb 23, 2010 (gmt 0) |
I would like to have had Buzz OFF by default, it should have been.
That being said Google knows that to reach critical mass they needed to have it turned on by default. It was a gamble and it backfired a little bit. It was also a good business decision in the current state of the net.
|
|
