Comments on: Privacy Critics Don’t Give Google Enough ‘Latitude’ http://searchengineland.com/privacy-critics-dont-give-google-enough-latitude-16475 Search Engine Land: Must Read News About Search Marketing & Search Engines Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:29:48 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Andrew Goodman http://searchengineland.com/privacy-critics-dont-give-google-enough-latitude-16475/comment-page-1#comment-4728 Andrew Goodman Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:37:27 +0000 http://searchengineland.com/?p=16475#comment-4728 Again, we're talking about edge cases here, not the sophisticated user. Edge cases that derive from predators' superior tenacity in stalking, for example. Raising awareness in order to protect children, in particular, seems like the responsible thing to do. Again, we’re talking about edge cases here, not the sophisticated user. Edge cases that derive from predators’ superior tenacity in stalking, for example. Raising awareness in order to protect children, in particular, seems like the responsible thing to do.

]]> By: Andrew Goodman http://searchengineland.com/privacy-critics-dont-give-google-enough-latitude-16475/comment-page-1#comment-4727 Andrew Goodman Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:35:41 +0000 http://searchengineland.com/?p=16475#comment-4727 I beg to differ. Listen carefully to what seasoned privacy advocates are saying. Sometimes breaches fall outside of the neat box of what the individual is trying to provide access to "on paper" as things are "supposed to work." Someone just accidentally invited me (offered to share their location) by mistyping an email address. There are going to be countless cases where people are followed without their knowledge and consent, IMHO, for a variety of reasons. If we're going to talk about the benefits of technology, isn't it OK to talk about the risks, or is that just "fatuous"? That the horse is already out of the barn privacy-wise shouldn't be reason enough to preclude raising legitimate concerns in an attempt to help technologically unsophisticated people make better choices. I beg to differ. Listen carefully to what seasoned privacy advocates are saying. Sometimes breaches fall outside of the neat box of what the individual is trying to provide access to “on paper” as things are “supposed to work.”

Someone just accidentally invited me (offered to share their location) by mistyping an email address.

There are going to be countless cases where people are followed without their knowledge and consent, IMHO, for a variety of reasons.

If we’re going to talk about the benefits of technology, isn’t it OK to talk about the risks, or is that just “fatuous”?

That the horse is already out of the barn privacy-wise shouldn’t be reason enough to preclude raising legitimate concerns in an attempt to help technologically unsophisticated people make better choices.

]]> By: Chris Smith http://searchengineland.com/privacy-critics-dont-give-google-enough-latitude-16475/comment-page-1#comment-4712 Chris Smith Fri, 06 Feb 2009 23:37:23 +0000 http://searchengineland.com/?p=16475#comment-4712 I think you're entirely right: the possibility of someone snooping into one's personal belongings and setting stuff up inside one's belongings to snoop on them isn't really worthy of raising the privacy red-flag. This would be tantamount to trying to blame Microsoft because some friend or family member of mine could surrepticiously add spyware to my PC. For that matter, if I let a friend or family member into my house, and they happen to look through my filing cabinet, perhaps I should blame the filing cabinet manufacturer as well! No -- their example case is fatuous -- once you've given someone access to your private stuff, the responsibility is more with you than with any third party. Just because something is innovative does not mean that misuse of it is the sole responsibility of its creator. I think you’re entirely right: the possibility of someone snooping into one’s personal belongings and setting stuff up inside one’s belongings to snoop on them isn’t really worthy of raising the privacy red-flag.

This would be tantamount to trying to blame Microsoft because some friend or family member of mine could surrepticiously add spyware to my PC.

For that matter, if I let a friend or family member into my house, and they happen to look through my filing cabinet, perhaps I should blame the filing cabinet manufacturer as well!

No — their example case is fatuous — once you’ve given someone access to your private stuff, the responsibility is more with you than with any third party. Just because something is innovative does not mean that misuse of it is the sole responsibility of its creator.

]]>