Google Plus: Is privacy an issue?
Summary: Many web users do not recognize the importance of privacy and security, a problem destined to become much worse before it gets better.
Many web users do not recognize the importance of privacy and security, a problem destined to become much worse before it gets better.
If you thought the Dropbox terms of service were problematic (here and here), then look at Google's (emphasis added):
You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
On the surface, it seems rather innocuous, intended merely to give Google permission to transmit your data across various networks onto all sorts of mobile devices. However, Google demands extremely broad rights from users. Under what circumstances would you sign a contract giving someone such free range with your intellectual property?
Salesforce.com. As a point of comparison, let's look at the Proprietary Rights section of Salesforce.com's Master Services Agreement. Salesforce's language is clearer, more restrained, and far less invasive than Google's (emphasis added):
You authorize Us to host, copy, transmit, display and adapt such applications and program code, solely as necessary for Us to provide the Services in accordance with this Agreement. Subject to the above, We acquire no right, title or interest from You or Your licensors under this Agreement in or to such applications or program code, including any intellectual property rights therein.
We acquire no right, title or interest from You or Your licensors under this Agreement in or to Your Data, including any intellectual property rights therein.
Salesforce.com's privacy policy adds:
Salesforce.com will not review, share, distribute, or reference any such Customer Data except as provided in the salesforce.com Master Subscription Agreement, or as may be required by law.
Jive Software. As another point of comparison with Google, I reviewed Jive Software's various legal agreements. In general, if you post content to their website, then Jive is free and clear to use, transmit, and adapt it like Google. However, their product license agreements have no discussion of customer content.
Twitter offers another worthwhile data point to consider; here's the relevent section from Twitter's privacy policy. Like Salesforce, their terms bound the issue more clearly than does Google (emphasis added):
We engage certain trusted third parties to perform functions and provide services to us. We may share your personal information with these third parties, but only to the extent necessary to perform these functions and provide such services, and only pursuant to obligations mirroring the protections of this privacy policy.
As you can see, privacy and data ownership policies, not to mention disclosure of these policies, vary from one software vendor to another. In an interesting post, enterprise strategist Chirag Mehta suggests that cloud providers should think more carefully about terms of service:
[Y]our product design includes getting the TOS and End User License Agreement (EULA) right before you open up the service. The way the most TOS and EULA are worded, an average user can't even fathom what the service actually does, what information it collects, what it shares, and most importantly what's that it absolutely won't do.
So, back to Google; an article on MSNBC [update: link suddenly went dead] agrees that Google Plus is a potential privacy landmine for users:
Combined with Google's terms of use, careless conduct -- such as posting messages on the network that you really should not be posting -- could be a recipe for a privacy nightmare.
I see a world of pain coming out of these privacy policies.
Advice to consumers: There is no privacy on the consumer web; assume everything you post is either public today or will be tomorrow. Enjoy the web, but be smart when posting private information.
Advice to CIOs and enterprise decision makers: As always, life is more complicated for the enterprise. Although Google Plus may become the default public social network, it's absolutely not a private repository for corporate intellectual property. Remind employees that Google Plus is a general-purpose communication tool to be used only when privacy and security don't matter.
Update 7/11/11: I spoke too fast about Twitter's terms of service. Here's their language:
We may modify or adapt your Content in order to transmit, display or distribute it over computer networks and in various media and/or make changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to any requirements or limitations of any networks, devices, services or media.
Do you think there a problem with this kind of language, which seems quite broad yet also plays a specific purpose in giving these sites permission to transmit your data?
Photo of screens watching everywhere by Michael Krigsman
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Facebook
RE: Google Plus: The anti-privacy machine?
RE: Google Plus: The anti-privacy machine?
WTF is wrong with everyone and putting up with this crap? We boycott the banks and other stuff but not the ones that are screwing us over without even leaving us a tip on the night stand!
It is interersting: even if you will delete your IP content, will it ..
If even if they will "ask" sub-licensors to delete your content, will they actually comply?
RE: Google Plus: The anti-privacy machine?
RE: Google Plus: The anti-privacy machine?
<a href="http://www.rentalprotectionagency.com/tenant-screening.php">Background Check Rental</a>
this is FUD
I stake my reputation on it!
RE: Google Plus: The anti-privacy machine?
I suggest you re-read the first paragraph of the post.
RE: Google Plus: The anti-privacy machine?
RE: Google Plus: The anti-privacy machine?
that's very reasonable if you don't have something to hide. Information sharing should be free so google can innovate freely!
RE: Google Plus: The anti-privacy machine?
The quote from the EULA is being intentionally misinterpreted by nonlawyers. The quote from the EULA is standard language allowing them to display your writing, images, etc. on the web and to retain cached copies... It doesn't claim ownership or anything of that nature. The Salesforce EULA is a bit more explicit about the lack of an ownership claim in having the terms for the end of "perpetuity" spelled out closer to that term.
It's not an outright lie, but it is the EULA taken out of context next to similar sections of other EULAs taken out of context. Taking something out of context, while not technically lying is incredibly misleading. I'd say it is FUD because it's out of context.
And if you look further up in that EULA:
"9.4 Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist). Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, you agree that you are responsible for protecting and enforcing those rights and that Google has no obligation to do so on your behalf."
Which clarifies that in the same manner. And further down:
"13.5 When these Terms come to an end, all of the legal rights, obligations and liabilities that you and Google have benefited from, been subject to (or which have accrued over time whilst the Terms have been in force) or which are expressed to continue indefinitely, shall be unaffected by this cessation, and the provisions of paragraph 20.7 shall continue to apply to such rights, obligations and liabilities indefinitely."
Meaning that when you elect to end your contract with Google by terminating your account, their rights to your content end.
There was a much better analysis posted about this yesterday on ZDNet. With a lot less "The sky is falling" and all that crap.
you misinterpret what you quoted
The section 9 you quote specifically says that other than section 11 they have no right to anything else. It does not in any way address the privacy concerns set forth by section 11.
Section 13.5 says that the cessation of terms DOES NOT affect their rights. It says the opposite of what you're claiming. It specifically says the rights they've obtained will not be affected.
So in summary, your post shows you haven't actually read or understood the content in the slightest.
RE: Google Plus: The anti-privacy machine?
RE: Google Plus: The anti-privacy machine?
It's demonstrably false because it takes quotes from the EULA out of context without the relevant clauses that spell out termination and limitation of Google's rights. If you want to see it in context look at the whole ToS.
http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS
The author isn't a lawyer, and isn't really qualified to make a legal judgement anyhow... And proves himself not equal to the task by focusing only on a few clauses not in the context of the rest of the contract. A contract is the sum of its clauses, which can relate to eachother and can spell out when one part ends.
So, don't publish your unpublished book manuscript on social media
RE: Google Plus: The anti-privacy machine?
RE: Google Plus: The anti-privacy machine?
You'd think all of the screaming and shouting about giving a social media site the right to publish information that you give them would end. But no.
Errr......
People care much more about local privacy
While I think that it's a terrible thing that US government can read my emails, that google can in principle email my neighbor, in practice it's much more dangerous using Facebook when your privacy is concerned.
If you want to store data on someone elses computer you need to be prepared that you're striped of any privacy. I have couple of people using my server for very private matters and it's only my good will that I don't look at their data and use it at my advantage.
The minute you decide to share something on web, your data is no longer yours, the best thing you can hope for is that their policy is such that local privacy is conserved so people that you know don't know every personal relationship you have with any other person.
That's why Google+ is by far better than Facebook in terms of privacy.
Honestly...
I seriously doubt the fact that, let's say, terrorists will post plans of their newest death-ray on Google+. I also doubt the fact that someone with a little brain matter would go posting his credit card information or talk crap about their boss.
Seriously, the only sane person here is Linux Geek. Oh, and Gis Bun, you are very much a hypocrite if you're going to call Linux Geek a conspiracy nut. Take a good look in the mirror, you're the one who's on the "Oh-no-the-interwebs-will-know-what-I'm-doing-and-use-my-information-in-highly-macabre-purposes" bandwagon.