> You conveniently left out the word "advertising". Employees misusing admin access is a threat with any company you may do business with.
Then you shouldn't have replied to me and changed the context?
The context was information in Google's possession.
You tried to narrow it to advertising after I replied which is, at best, silly.
EDIT:
> ..did you read the original post?
You replied to me and tried to plays devil advocate. The context of my words is the one that is relevant, not your attempt to shift the goal posts into some narrow land of the absurd where you get to pretend the fact information Google collects ultimately gets abused isn't a privacy problem.
So just stop, honestly. Your position as absurd as storing plain text passwords because "Well, there has never been an official policy of abusing that information."
Rogue admins, hackers, etc. are all valid threats to privacy when the information is stored in an easily transportable form and the fact that isn't obvious to you terrifies me that you are somehow a professional sysadmin.
Then you shouldn't have replied to me and changed the context?
The context was information in Google's possession.
You tried to narrow it to advertising after I replied which is, at best, silly.
EDIT:
> ..did you read the original post?
You replied to me and tried to plays devil advocate. The context of my words is the one that is relevant, not your attempt to shift the goal posts into some narrow land of the absurd where you get to pretend the fact information Google collects ultimately gets abused isn't a privacy problem.
So just stop, honestly. Your position as absurd as storing plain text passwords because "Well, there has never been an official policy of abusing that information."
Rogue admins, hackers, etc. are all valid threats to privacy when the information is stored in an easily transportable form and the fact that isn't obvious to you terrifies me that you are somehow a professional sysadmin.