[houseabsolute]

Mostly as someone who can read.

My point is that unless you or anyone can suggest a rational argument against clarifying this policy's language, I'm just not going to worry about it, and I don't think anyone else should either. "Lawyers can exploit it more easily" doesn't work as a rational argument for me. It seems like almost all privacy violations out there happen well within the constraints of privacy policies, or by accident. There's rarely ambiguity in a policy which gets exploited to enable something unexpected. It seems like a really low-concern area that doesn't deserve the kind of FUD I'm seeing in this thread. Especially in the case of a company like Google that could suffer for reversing its public stance on privacy.

[Andrew_Quentin]

That is a layman.

It hardly seems more clear than the old privacy policy. I mean, is it really so high in the agenda of google to worry about people reading four or so words saying that google cares about their privacy!

There are some updates such as calling gadgets third party applications which is really just keeping up with the times. However, unless they have bored employees with nothing to do but surfing around to see what they can make more customer friendly - this is from a company with one of the poorest customer services - I do not see why would they simply decide for the fun of it to change their privacy policy.

If nothing else, the tone of the new privacy policy is: deal with it. The rest of it we will find out shortly in the next decade.

[houseabsolute]

> That is a layman.

So, are you a lawyer, or just a purveyor of FUD and ad hominems (literally -- you're saying I'm wrong because of some property about me rather than a weakness in my argument)?

> It hardly seems more clear than the old privacy policy.

It's more clear on the basis that twelve other products' privacy policies have been rolled into this one, and this one is still substantially shorter than it was (which would be more clear if we could compare before and after side-by-side rather than with the strikethroughs inlined). You now have to look in fewer places to get an understanding of the totality of Google's stance regarding privacy and your information.

> However, unless they have bored employees with nothing to do . . .

Part of the legal team's job is to periodically revisit external legal documents and make sure they convey the messages they're meant to as well as possible. It's extraordinary that you can see the sinister in something so innocuous.

[Andrew_Quentin]

you're saying I'm wrong because of some property about me rather than a weakness in my argument

I said that it is easier for lawyers to abuse, to which you replied that really you do not think so to which I asked if you are a lawyer. To which you replied no. At this point, I do not quite see what your argument is.

I am of possibly the sceptical opinion that a company like google who hardly cares to be customer friendly does not just decide to be friendly in some area which mostly affects their business, that being the policy with how they use the richness of data they gather. I will however concede. It is for the months and year coming to show their true motivations.