"The truth is that contrary to Google’s representations it continues to systematically surveil customers and profit from customer data. Google's bold misrepresentations are a clear violation of consumers’ privacy."
Amen!
I hope they assess billions of dollars in penalties and break them into little pieces.
Oh, and please don't make this out to be a "political" topic, as there is nothing "political" about corporate misdeeds.
I'm delighted and I too, hope they get nailed.
Boy if this isn't a case of pot and kettle.
And they could get the billions in penalties by charging all the people who have used Googles services and products without paying...
Can you call someone a "customer" if they don't pay for the services?
(that's devil advocate)
customer
kŭs′tə-mər
noun
- One that BUYS goods or services, as from a store or business.
- An individual with whom one must deal.
- A collector of customs; a toll-gatherer; a tax-gatherer.
In theory yes, great idea. In practice, this sounds like a great way to pay for lots and lots of attorneys vacation houses in the Caribbean and increase the supply of low mileage super cars in 5-10 years time. No one going to win this one except for lawyer bank accounts.
This didn't go anywhere when Facebook did the same thing. In addition to data being hacked. They will put it in front of a panel that can barely check email. The result is a dog and pony show.
Best possible outcome: more public awareness.
Most likely outcome: zilch
RevRico said:Boy if this isn't a case of pot and kettle.
He's mad googles better at it than the NSA.
Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:In theory yes, great idea. In practice, this sounds like a great way to pay for lots and lots of attorneys vacation houses in the Caribbean and increase the supply of low mileage super cars in 5-10 years time. No one going to win this one except for lawyer bank accounts.
All consumers, not just in the US but around the world, would stand to gain a lot from breaking up the tech megacorps and ending surveillance capitalism. But I'd say Google is the one that needs to be broken up the 3rd most badly behind Facebook and Amazon.
All three of them are gleeful wannabe monopolists, as seen in leaked internal communications, but Facebook is the only one that goes out of its way to cross-integrate their products solely as a defense against being broken up.
As much as everyone professes to hate Google, they're the best at what they do.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
Amazon is a whore, no doubt. I thought I read that they own most of the internet servers around the globe? Seems like a great idea.
Let me add one thing for those not in the know about this - let me tell you about the Killzone.
Each of these tech megacorps has a "killzone" around their most profitable products - if your company steps into the "killzone" by competing with them, they will buy you out, or if they can't, they'll destroy your company in anticompetitive ways:
aircooled said:And they could get the billions in penalties by charging all the people who have used Googles services and products without paying...
Can you call someone a "customer" if they don't pay for the services?
customer
kŭs′tə-mər
noun
- One that BUYS goods or services, as from a store or business.
- An individual with whom one must deal.
- A collector of customs; a toll-gatherer; a tax-gatherer.
By signing the TOS you are LITERALLY agreeing to it.
Don't like it, don't use it.
This just goes to show how great life is in America, that people literally complain about the effects of a service THEY CHOOSE TO USE.
z31maniac said:aircooled said:And they could get the billions in penalties by charging all the people who have used Googles services and products without paying...
Can you call someone a "customer" if they don't pay for the services?
customer
kŭs′tə-mər
noun
- One that BUYS goods or services, as from a store or business.
- An individual with whom one must deal.
- A collector of customs; a toll-gatherer; a tax-gatherer.
By signing agreeing to the TOS you are LITERALLY agreeing to it.
Don't like it, don't use it.
This just goes to show how great life is in America, that people literally complain about the effects of a service THEY CHOOSE TO USE.
^^^^^ All. Of. This.
barefootskater5000 said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
Amazon is a whore, no doubt. I thought I read that they own most of the internet servers around the globe? Seems like a great idea.
Not most of the world's servers, but they're the single largest owner of server infrastructure around the world. When even one of their data centers goes down, it can take out a big chunk of the Internet, as has happened a few times recently. In a sane world this Very Fat Dog of the data-hosting industry would be broken off of the Buy-N-Large like tech megacorp that owns it, and then it might even be broken up Bell-style by region after that.
z31maniac said:By signing the TOS you are LITERALLY agreeing to it.
Don't like it, don't use it.
This just goes to show how great life is in America, that people literally complain about the effects of a service THEY CHOOSE TO USE.
I do not have a google account, and I have never clicked "accept" on a google TOS. So you're saying that google doesn't have any of my information? Whew! That's a relief!
In reply to GameboyRMH :
Yes, because the regional monopolies that came out of the Bell breakup have worked out so well for us.
z31maniac said:aircooled said:And they could get the billions in penalties by charging all the people who have used Googles services and products without paying...
Can you call someone a "customer" if they don't pay for the services?
customer
kŭs′tə-mər
noun
- One that BUYS goods or services, as from a store or business.
- An individual with whom one must deal.
- A collector of customs; a toll-gatherer; a tax-gatherer.
By signing the TOS you are LITERALLY agreeing to it.
Don't like it, don't use it.
This just goes to show how great life is in America, that people literally complain about the effects of a service THEY CHOOSE TO USE.
Here's the real question- is Google being honest of what they said they would be doing when you "signed" that agreement? If they are not- this is a real problem, and consumers have a real gripe.
If they are limiting themselves to exactly what they said they would be doing, sure, you are right.
But that's the real question.
67LS1 said:As much as everyone professes to hate Google, they're the best at what they do.
You mean delivering hits to the people who pay to advertise on them?
In theory, they have am amazing search engine. But it's also possible that they bias the search in ways that the consumer has no idea about. I know I still lean on google to deliver what I am asking, but I'm not 100% confident they are delivering the whole answer anymore. Especially when you search for something more obscure, and there's a page or two of companies selling stuff over the actual info you are looking for.
1988RedT2 said:z31maniac said:By signing the TOS you are LITERALLY agreeing to it.
Don't like it, don't use it.
This just goes to show how great life is in America, that people literally complain about the effects of a service THEY CHOOSE TO USE.
I do not have a google account, and I have never clicked "accept" on a google TOS. So you're saying that google doesn't have any of my information? Whew! That's a relief!
Have you ever email a Gmail account or used an Android phone?
In reply to Grtechguy :
No Gmail. No "smart" phone. Remember, I am old.
1988RedT2 said:z31maniac said:By signing the TOS you are LITERALLY agreeing to it.
Don't like it, don't use it.
I do not have a google account, and I have never clicked "accept" on a google TOS.
Account or no, have you ever USED Google even just to search for something?
Then you've agreed to their terms of service.
I guess we should let the courts decide.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-location-tracking-lawsuit-d-c-washington-indiana-texas/
Duke said:1988RedT2 said:z31maniac said:By signing the TOS you are LITERALLY agreeing to it.
Don't like it, don't use it.
I do not have a google account, and I have never clicked "accept" on a google TOS.
Account or no, have you ever USED Google even just to search for something?
Then you've agreed to their terms of service.
Google might think so, but for some reason I think that agreeing to onerous legal language should require more than just clicking "search" on a web page. I also think that certain terms should be unenforceable, like waiving the right to a jury trial? From clicking a search button? Yeah, that's totally reasonable.
I agree in principle with the sentiment that 'you accepted the TOS so it's your own fault'. But that's not really a practical argument in these days. IF you're a student you in many cases have no ability to opt out of using Google services. If you are older (by which I'm implying over 70, as at 52 I grew up with computers, the early internet, dumb phones and onwards) you literally may not understand what you are agreeing too. Also even for you average, above average or way above average person, understanding what the TOS mean without a Juris Doctorate is realistically beyond you. You are forced to sign at the bottom of pages and pages of 8pt text. Yes, the argument is you shouldn't sign if you don't understand, but there comes a point that understanding is beyond the normal persons capability and something is so ubiquitous that in reality you have to accept the TOS, or be forced to one of the very very few true competitors who all have equally onerous and difficult to understand TOS. That's the point that the 'government' should step in to protect people. This isn't shirking personal responsibility or wanting a nanny state, there is a point that something is so complex (or dangerous, or hazards to others etc.) that it's beyond the expectations that a normal person can understand the whole scope. That's why States have standardized forms and contracts for buying a house etc.
You'll need to log in to post.
