I like that you have sent this "observation" from gmail :) They are on to you already; look out ...
But I agree, that first policy snippet you posted is a flat-out lie ... -- Michael On 9/22/05, Berend-Jan Wever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > Maybe the frivolous way in which I addressed this problem lead people to > believe I am not to be taken seriously. I would suggest you do not judge the > book by its cover. Allow me to explain my point of view in more detail: > > 1. You are not securing your information, you are putting all your eggs in > one basket. > > 2. I am not disputing the _reasons_ they may have to gather information or > _what_ information the gather, I am merely pointing out that the problem is > the _fact_ that they do so. > > Google Secure Access misleads their users by implying that _no-one_ will get > to see anything of what you send to and receive from the Internet if you use > their service. But if you read their privacy policy, you will find out that > they are tracking this information themselves. > > A good deal of the services offered by Google are provided so Google can > track how you use them. This is an exchange of services, you supply Google > with your usage data and Google supplies you with whatever service you > request. You may not pay for these services with money, but you do pay for > them with information. Google uses this information to make money. I assumed > this was common knowledge. > Google may do whatever they see fit with this information within the > boundaries of the law. The law binds Google to uphold the privacy policy. > The privacy policy allows Google to do whatever they want if they so see fit > by thinking up a good reason to do so. I am not saying they will, I am > saying they can. > > Mr Boily: > I did selectively quote parts of the privacy policy; I only quoted those > parts that were relevant to my argument. Again, my argument is about the > _fact_ that they collect data, not _what_ they collect nor the _reasons_ > they may have for doing so. I also supplied the link to the policy so anyone > can read the full version. > > We seem to use a different definition of spyware. This has happened before > on this list. If you Google the definition, you will find everybody has > their own. In my previous email and this I am using these definitions: > "spyware" - Any software program that monitors a persons actions without his > or her knowledge > "trojan" - Any software program that presents itself to its users as > something useful but, unknown to its user, also performs another action for > its creators. > If you agree to these definitions, you must see that Google Secure Access is > both a trojan and spyware. > > > Cheers, > SkyLined > > -- > Berend-Jan Wever <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.edup.tudelft.nl/~bjwever > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: > http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/