I'm reasonably certain that Google does not generate random URLs to crawl, and it never has. You have to be linked by an existing page before they'll crawl your page.
The thing is, they're not losing users. None of these applications were directing users to maps.google.com - what they were doing was taking the maps data and displaying it within their own environment. I don't think Google benefits from that in any way, and it's quite frankly amazing that they allow anyone to just leech off them like this.
I do not understand this at all. You need Facebook to use Spotify, and that's a problem because you can't be anonymous on Facebook. But if you can't be anonymous on Facebook, then isn't Facebook illegal too?
While I don't use TOR myself, I don't think that's correct. If you do your downloading via TOR, then it's encrypted and you won't get any strikes. If you download without TOR, then who cares?
Google got rid of the + operator a while back. They want to use it to interact with Google+ (obviously) but that means it can't also be the operator for "really include this word". You should use quotes for that instead, like "really include this word".
As for Google's weird desire to give people what they want instead of what they asked for, you should remember that you're probably not average. Based solely on the content (and grammar) of your post, you're probably well above average, intelligence-wise. The fact that you know how to properly format a search query does not mean that most people do.
The problem is that if you give away your product to one company but not another, the company you're not helping sues you. Although I guess we're talking about the Content Cartels, and I know they would never sue an internet company for giving stuff away free.
"Personal data" doesn't just mean my name and health stats. It also means things like where I am and what I'm doing, if I'm in a private place. So what gives the government (via my ISP) the right to record all my internet activity?
Re: Re: Re: I hate people that make money cause I cant
It's debatable that the new policy is "less" private. Oh no, now YouTube knows that I'm the same person who searched for Britney Spears and is showing me videos of her! I mean, if I'm logged in. And was also logged in while searching.
You agreed to let Google use your data in order to provide its services. That's axiomatic. All the new policy says is that the services can share with each other. There are no new humans that can see your data (which, for those following at home, means the number of other humans who can see your data is still zero).
The thing about not deleting your data is more worrying, if true. However, I think you're misstating the facts a little. Sure, Google will keep general activity logs that include records of things you did, but that's just common sense. Do you expect them to comb through the vast amount of anonymous data to delete the few entries that are yours?
As for your personal data, anything linked to your account, and anything with your name on it, that goes away shortly after you delete your account. Of course it does. Google has zero interest in creepily stalking ex-users; you leave, they burn your stuff. Why not? What would they gain by keeping it? I mean, aside from lawsuits. They'd get lots of those. But profit? I don't think so.
Could you explain why Google's new policy violates its CO? I don't think they're forbidden from ever changing anything, I think they're just forbidden from doing things in secret. The change in privacy policy has been the most non-secret change ever. Seriously, Google will not shut up about it. So how is it a violation?
"Perhaps if they had a few more lawyers on staff, someone would have taken the time to realize that they were supposed to give the domain back within a specified time frame."
Isn't that an argument for adding more lawyers to the IP division?
I suspect that's what Google's going to do. They have no real interest in enforcing patents against smaller companies; that trades goodwill and brand for money, and I like to think Google's smarter than that. The missiles are already launched vs Apple and Microsoft though. I expect we'll see that play out to the bloody end.
On the post: Odd That Microsoft Demands Google Take Down Links That Remain In Bing
Huh?
Microsoft owns a search engine?!?
On the post: Google Lifts The Veil On Copyright Takedowns: Reveals Detailed Data On Who Requests Link Removals
Re: Unpublished directories
On the post: Pirate Bay Block Initiates Streisand Cascade, Drives Record Traffic
Government responding to people
On the post: Insanity: CISPA Just Got Way Worse, And Then Passed On Rushed Vote
Re: Alpha Centauri
On the post: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Quizzes US Register Of Copyrights Over Close Connection To Industry
Rep Lofgren
On the post: Google Maps Exodus Continues As Wikipedia Mobile Apps Switch To OpenStreetMap
Re: Re: Users vs money
On the post: Google Maps Exodus Continues As Wikipedia Mobile Apps Switch To OpenStreetMap
Users vs money
On the post: Google Defends The DMCA's Safe Harbors Against The MPAA's Attempts To Reinterpret Them In Hotfile Case
Google buying Viacom
On the post: Spotify Finally Launches In Germany -- And Immediately Hits Data Protection Problems
...then how is Facebook legal?
On the post: ISPs Will Start Acting As Hollywood's Private Online Security Guards By July
Re: TOR
On the post: Misfortune Sucks, But It's Not Google's Responsibility
+search
As for Google's weird desire to give people what they want instead of what they asked for, you should remember that you're probably not average. Based solely on the content (and grammar) of your post, you're probably well above average, intelligence-wise. The fact that you know how to properly format a search query does not mean that most people do.
On the post: Misfortune Sucks, But It's Not Google's Responsibility
Choosing to give away ads
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Perfect 10's Silly Lawsuit Against Google; Good Ruling Stands
WSJ shoots itself in the foot again
On the post: Could A Consumer Privacy Bill Of Rights Even Work?
Google selling data
On the post: Could A Consumer Privacy Bill Of Rights Even Work?
Re: Re: Confusion ....
On the post: Could A Consumer Privacy Bill Of Rights Even Work?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: FTC Reminds EPIC That Suing The FTC To Get It To Investigate Google Might Not Be The Best Idea
Re: Re: Re: I hate people that make money cause I cant
You agreed to let Google use your data in order to provide its services. That's axiomatic. All the new policy says is that the services can share with each other. There are no new humans that can see your data (which, for those following at home, means the number of other humans who can see your data is still zero).
The thing about not deleting your data is more worrying, if true. However, I think you're misstating the facts a little. Sure, Google will keep general activity logs that include records of things you did, but that's just common sense. Do you expect them to comb through the vast amount of anonymous data to delete the few entries that are yours?
As for your personal data, anything linked to your account, and anything with your name on it, that goes away shortly after you delete your account. Of course it does. Google has zero interest in creepily stalking ex-users; you leave, they burn your stuff. Why not? What would they gain by keeping it? I mean, aside from lawsuits. They'd get lots of those. But profit? I don't think so.
On the post: FTC Reminds EPIC That Suing The FTC To Get It To Investigate Google Might Not Be The Best Idea
Re: It just might have to
On the post: Justice Department Wants $5 Million To Bolster Its Efforts As Hollywood's Private Police Force
Make up your mind
Isn't that an argument for adding more lawyers to the IP division?
On the post: If Google Is Serious About Reforming Patent Mess, It Should Make A Bold Statement And Stop Using Motorola Patents To Demand Cash
Re: Re:
Next >>