[sgregnt]

No this is one of the most verified facts. The privacy agreements of gmail, facebook and what not, serve like a poll for this: if you use the service you agree to this. Majority of people use Gmail, Facebook, etc. So this is not anecdotal. On the other hand the desire to "protect" privacy at the expense of free services is based on anecdotal data at best.

[JohnFen]

> The privacy agreements of gmail, facebook and what not, serve like a poll for this

I don't think they do, given that most people don't read them, and a large percentage of them are written so it's very hard to tell what they are really saying unless you're a lawyer.

[vsl]

That nobody gives a damn and doesn’t even read it kinda proves the point, no?

[vidarh]

No, because it presupposes that people understand what they might be implicitly allowing by not reading them. Without first knowing whether or not people understand the extent of surveillance that is possible and the possible consequences we can not know what it means that people ignore the privacy agreements.

It's possible people genuinely don't care. It's also possible they don't understand the implications, and/or that they trust these companies more than they ought to.

[JohnFen]

No. Not reading it is not equivalent to "not giving a damn".

First, having to read a long block of legalese on every visit to a website (which would be necessary because those privacy polices can change without notice at any time) is unsupportable. If people actually did that, it would render the web completely unusable. The average normal person can't be blamed for saying "screw that", nor can their attitude about privacy really be inferred from it.

Second, even for those of us who are more concerned than the average person about these issues, reading privacy policies is a pointless waste of time. Once you have a lawyer interpret them for you, it turns out that the vast majority of them say the same thing -- they are reserving the right to do anything they want with my data. That means that I can safely predict what privacy policies say, so there's no need to read them.

[100100010001]

If it is a fact then show me the proof.

Just because people use a service doesn’t mean they have read the terms and conditions. Therefore, your anecdote is just that.

[duckMuppet]

Using the service is generally an acceptance and agreement to the terms of service.

A similar analogy is that I may not want to read my credit card bill, that doesn't eliminate the responsibility I have to pay it. Or, I may not want to read my visa card notice they send informing of a change in the APR or other conditions for service. however, my continued use of the card is the standard way one accepts new or changed TOS.

Maintaining ignorance doesn't excuse the actions.

[afiori]

Your argument implies that Google is acting in the limits of the current law.

Not really relevant to a change in the law.