[jcz_nz]

This is a dumb take.

No, you cannot “buy” people’s personal data (name, phone #, address, email, etc) from Google.

Yes, sale of a business unit usually includes the customer contracts, leads and historical data of that business unit. No, there isn’t anything nefarious about that, and every other business you transacted with does the same thing.

Yeah sure there is a cottage industry trying to use google’s data to augment other data sources, but that’s not “Google selling my personal data”.

[w_for_wumbo]

I do think when a company is bought by another, you should need to 'opt-in' to continuing your business with them. There shouldn't be an assumption that consent is transitive and that if you consented to Company A having your information, that you're also happy with Company B that takes over also having it.

It's the same thing with time; consent when given should not be eternal. I don't want to be contacted by a company I signed up to 12 years ago and forgot about to contact me about a new product.

[AndroTux]

From what I know, at least in my country, this is the case. Additionally, in the case of Google Domains, nothing is stopping you from migrating your domains to some other registry right now, before they get transferred over to Squarespace.

One could argue that having your data with Google is more damaging to one’s privacy than having it with any other company, considering that Googles business model is the selling of ads based on your data, but that’s besides the point here.

[w_for_wumbo]

I haven't fleshed out the thought, but I've always thought it would be ideal if you were able to keep control of your data at all times.

You have a record of your details secured with locally stored biometrics and systems can reference that data with your consent (and an audit history) That way you don't need hundreds of accounts just to order food, products etc.

So the third-party never knows who you are, or where you're located, but are able to use your location by referencing your location record. That way they don't need to store any data about you.

[40acres]

I’m not sure about this one - seems like it significantly reduces the value of data, which would have a downstream impact on the entire industry. I guess that’s what you intended, but my mind quickly went to a rabbit hole with the second order effects of this one.

[noizejoy]

Arguably, the value of data in its modern version is much higher than mere “goodwill” including customer relationships. The data travels easily without customer consent, while a traditional customer relationship can be canceled by the customer at any time.

So the value of data is a modern day business windfall, that can be argued as unfair. Or fair. Depending on your viewpoint.

[dahwolf]

Absolutely not. Mergers/acquisitions happen all the time and the masses very much expect that service continues without action.

[mort96]

Squarespace bought the personal data (name, phone #, address, email etc) of all Google Domains customers. I cannot do that, but Squarespace could. Google sold, among other things, that data, to Squarespace.

What's dumb about that take?

[hendersoon]

Squarespace is giving Google money, and in exchange they're getting my personal information so they can bill me. That seems extremely clear-cut. Not sure if you're talking about some obscure legality interpretation but in plain speech, that is what they're doing.

[gretch]

Nothing has happened yet, and it’s easy for anyone who wants to opt out to do so. Transfer your domain and close your google domain account.

The bigger point though is that you are right, but it also applies to literally every business sale ever. What’s the point of talking about it now? Do you think GitHub sold your data to Microsoft?

[hendersoon]

They totally did, as did many other acquired companies, but (AFAIK) Github didn't have "we won't sell your data" as a core tenet of the company carried off the mountaintop inscribed on stone tablets like Google.

I'm not one of those enraged over this, but it is both perplexing and disappointing.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

> This is a dumb take.

Coming from the guy who yesterday talked about how much of a reputational risk selling Google Domains is... It's ironic he doesn't see tweeting something this dumb as a reputational risk...