Google to Sell User Profiles, Photos in Ads

[Renegade]

Google has joined Facebook and Instagram.

http://blogs.wsj.com...tos-in-ads/?mod=e2fb

Google updated its terms of service Friday to say that beginning Nov. 11 it has the right to sell adult users’  profile names, photos and comments in reviews and advertising.

Here’s how its “shared endorsements” would work: If you rate a product on Google Play or give a product a +1 (the Google equivalent to Facebook’s “like”), those actions can be shown to your friends and connections. So if you gave a +1 to your favorite fashion retailer, your mom might see an advertisement from that retailer that says you like it. Google is drawing that information from your Google+ account (and you might have one, even if you don’t use it).

Enjoy!

[rgdot]

Love this



</sarcasm>

[wraith808]

You can opt out.. though there's no real 'link' to the opt-out page.

Article
http://arstechnica.c...-content-in-its-ads/

Opt-out
https://plus.google....ettings/endorsements

[Deozaan]

I didn't have to opt out. The box was unchecked by default for me. Maybe it's opt-in? (One could wish...)

[wraith808]

Users are opted in to Google's new scheme by default. In the past, Google gave itself permission to use users’ +1s alongside advertisements unless the user specifically opted out. The new “shared endorsements” are an extension of that setting, wherein Google gives itself permission to take even more of a user’s content and place it alongside ads.

Had you opted out of that already?

[mouser]

The only surprise here is that they didn't wait a little longer before doing this little inevitable bait and switch advertising maneuver.

[TaoPhoenix]

Google has joined Facebook and Instagram.

http://blogs.wsj.com...tos-in-ads/?mod=e2fb

Google updated its terms of service Friday ...

-Renegade (October 12, 2013, 07:47 AM)

Oh! I know this one!

http://www.youtube.c.../watch?v=jsW9MlYu31g
"I am altering the Deal. Pray I don't alter it any further!"

[Deozaan]

Users are opted in to Google's new scheme by default. In the past, Google gave itself permission to use users’ +1s alongside advertisements unless the user specifically opted out. The new “shared endorsements” are an extension of that setting, wherein Google gives itself permission to take even more of a user’s content and place it alongside ads.

Had you opted out of that already?

-wraith808 (October 12, 2013, 03:50 PM)

Probably.

[Jibz]

Mine was disabled as well, and I had opted out of it previously.

You can opt out.. though there's no real 'link' to the opt-out page.

-wraith808 (October 12, 2013, 11:38 AM)

In my settings, under the Google+ tab, there was a link to the page (something like shared recommendations), and I got an e-mail telling me about it. There is also a big old blue bar at the top of google searches that says there was a policy change, with a link to the policy, which has a link to the setting for it. I think, compared to some other social sites, and previous cases for google as well, they have done a reasonable job making me aware of the change this time.

I don't know how I feel about it -- on one hand I want to be able to disable it of course, on the other hand I've found the +1 information to sometimes be helpful when trying to figure out what search result to click.

Btw: https://plus.google....35/posts/MRgubNY3kyg

[Renegade]

The only surprise here is that they didn't wait a little longer before doing this little inevitable bait and switch advertising maneuver.

-mouser (October 12, 2013, 05:28 PM)

I'm not too surprised. Instagram did the same thing a while back, and FB has followed up on it, so they've had the way paved for them, and so far it looks "safe", where "safe" means people are too self-absorbed, ignorant, and apathetic to notice, know, or care.

[Carol Haynes]

Assuming you are logged into google services try this link:

https://plus.google....ndorsements?hl=en-GB (in the UK)

You can untick the endorsements settings at the bottom and click save.

I don't use (and don't intend to use) Google+ but even so because I use GMail this is still set in my profile!!!

Anyone else think it is immoral that user data is used and they sneak it through knowing that only about 1% of people actual look at T&Cs.

This is the sort of setting that should be set to off by default and a screen pop up to ask you whether you agree when you login (with a no nag setting).

Google's motto of do no evil seems to have gone right of the window. This is basically theft by T&Cs that most won't read.

If everybody read every word of every T&C they agree to (and all the updates designed to bamboozle and obfuscate what is going on) there would be nothing done in the world other than reading T&Cs !!!!!

[wraith808]

^ That's the same link above

[TaoPhoenix]

I just thought of something.

"Over on the other side of the fence" someone seems to have made HIPAA stick for med records. The kind of *arrogant* in your face Vader-ian "Pray I do not abuse your data more" would NEVER fly over in the medical world!

But insurance companies are now known to be quietly mining the same info "informally" posted from people's Facebook Walls etc!

I wonder if a 750 billion dollar fine would wake someone up?

[Stoic Joker]

"Over on the other side of the fence" someone seems to have made HIPAA stick for med records. The kind of *arrogant* in your face Vader-ian "Pray I do not abuse your data more" would NEVER fly over in the medical world!

-TaoPhoenix (October 13, 2013, 01:45 PM)

Oh yeah, like the HIPAA laws are even that organized to start with. Sure they're trying to enforce encryption in/on/for laptops that are used in the medical field even if they don't even store data...they just get used to access systems that do. But if someone breaks into your practice and steals said laptop (which contains jack shit) you can get fined 7 ways to Sunday.

Yet with this kind of draconian horseshit floating around We still get the receptionist at the office informing one of my staff that his prescription is ready...because someone from the doctors office just called our office and blathered it to the front desk.

(For those that can't put it together on their own ... Announcing to someone's employer that they have been prescribed any medication for any reason, is bad.)

So what did those of the HIPAA ilk solve in this scenario?? Nothing ... Derrrp!

[lanux128]

hmm.. the idea that a company that gets by with revenue from ads is actually going to launch a pro bono social platform for its "users". i believe the bookies stopped taking bets on this one a long time ago.

still relevant

[Deozaan]

[Carol Haynes]

(see attachment in previous post)

-Deozaan (October 14, 2013, 01:52 AM)

 

The UK government are happily selling NHS medical data to companies now and the system is opt out.

It is all supposed to be anonymous but IIRC postcodes are included so that regional discrimination of data can be generated. It wouldn't take genius to work out form medical and postcode data who you are talking about (my postcode only covers 8 properties and 5 of them a holiday lets with no registered patients!)

So much for the UK Data Protection Act!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16026827
http://www.opendemoc...ta-on-sale-for-pound

[Renegade]

Big medico-data-whoredom gets worse.

That health insurance premium hike you had? Could have been because your grocery store loyalty card is used to record what you purchase, then sold to the insurance companies so they can figure out who eats more junk food, etc.

I'm sure it's worse than just that. The last few years have proved that it only ever gets worse.