×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google ToS Change Means Your Photo Could Go In Ads

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the ok-ok-I-like-nutella-and-coffee dept.

Advertising 136

An anonymous reader writes "Google [on Friday] announced an upcoming change to its terms of service that will let the company add users' names and photos to certain parts of its advertising as of November 11. Make no mistake: this is a direct attack against Facebook. One of the few advantages of Google+ is that it features no ads. To be perfectly clear, Google isn't changing that. Google+ will still have a clean interface, at least for the foreseeable future. Instead, Google is tying Google+ into yet another one of its properties, and arguably its most important one: Google Ads."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

136 comments

Attack? (5, Insightful)

Optimal Cynic (2886377) | about 6 months ago | (#45107873)

How is this an attack against Facebook? Are they competing for the title of "most hated social network"?

Re:Attack? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45107967)

How is this an attack against Facebook? Are they competing for the title of "most hated social network"?

Who the hell uses Google+? They keep annoying me to use it and I can't find a single use for it.

Re:Attack? (-1, Troll)

pahles (701275) | about 6 months ago | (#45108115)

Oh please, stop it! Because you haven't found a use for it doesn't mean nobody hasn't. Stop whining about it! Go crawl back in your obscure IRC channel.

Re: Attack? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108151)

Better an obscure IRC channel in your own server and sharing with friends than Google+/Facebook and sharing your life with NSA.

Re:Attack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108201)

Oh please, stop it! Because you haven't found a use for it doesn't mean nobody hasn't. Stop whining about it! Go crawl back in your obscure IRC channel.

Would love to. I assume you're volunteering to take care of getting Google to stop asking me to use Google+ whenever I sign into Gmail or Youtube then?

Telling people to stop complaining about something that constantly inconveniences them is arrogant in the extreme.

Re:Attack? (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 6 months ago | (#45108245)

Sorry but I'm with the AC, after they changed their TOS the first time and bugged the living shit out of me to use my real name everywhere they can take G+ and shove it, I avoid it like an STD.

And this is part of another trend I REALLY don't fucking like, corps avoiding copyrights when its good for THEM but royally screwing you if you dare do the same. Well screw you Google, my pics are copyrighted,wanna use 'em? PAY ME. of course i won't be putting them into either FB or G+ and I'd strongly suggest nobody put jack shit that you care about in either, but maybe you should upload pics to let them know how they feel about these changes....a nice Goatse perhaps?

Re:Attack? (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about 6 months ago | (#45108265)

That's why I told them a fake name and use a picture of a robot for my avatar.

I'm going to GIMP up my DL to show the fake and email it to them.

Along these lines (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45109351)

It's worth mentioning that Google now insists that images submitted by commercial sites for google shopping (google base) now contain no copyright or other identifying verbiage, or they will lock you out of base/shopping. They use these images, for instance that we have produced, to advertise products for other companies.

We stopped using google base over this issue. When we spend time doing product photography, we are NOT ok with those photos being used by google to promote our competitors.

Re:Attack? (4, Interesting)

swillden (191260) | about 6 months ago | (#45108631)

Out of curiosity, would you be okay with Google using your publicly-published reviews and comments as endorsements in ads if you were paid a portion of the ad revenue?

Re:Attack? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 6 months ago | (#45109193)

Maybe, if they got my clear, express consent by some means other than obscure fine print buried in a multi-page TOS.

I mean I have nothing against the general principle. But there isn't much chance I'd agree to it.

Re:Attack? (5, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | about 6 months ago | (#45108261)

look, I only technically have a google+ account because google tricked me into getting one. I could resist them on gmail. but as soon as I changed my youtube account to "new style" (or some shit like that) then BAM! I was as a google+ user.

you know why they did that? to drive up g+ user stats. fucking peons hunting for fake user numbers, that's what they are.

I'm not aware of fb using say instagram to trick people into becoming stat manipulation users..

and I sure as fuck don't want my social network to be handled by the guys who handle my search and mail..

Re:Attack? (1)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | about 6 months ago | (#45108773)

You can go and delete your Google+ account completely and it won't affect the Youtube thing.

Also, if Google hits you with the real name/ Google+ link demand after logging in, just reload the youtube.com page or reclick the bookmark. I know it's a pain in the arse, but it keeps them from asking.

Re:Attack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45109891)

I see a lot of these comments about how evil Google is trying to fake user numbers. And it's always from someone who doesn't understand why Google created Google+. Stop and think for a second and you realize how they had all these different products and how each of them were trying to incorporate social features separately. Google+ is simply the coordinated platform where they try to glue all of their products together. They aren't trying to trick anyone into joining to pad their stats. Their simply trying to eliminate duplication of effort and use the same social platform for Youtube, GMail, Calendar, etc!

Re:Attack? (3, Interesting)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about 6 months ago | (#45108309)

Most people who actively use it seem to be using it as a replacement for Skype. That's a pretty big market in terms of users, so I'd guess there are probably tens of millions of people actively using G+.

Re:Attack? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108001)

I think maybe theres been an attack against my bowels. Most times I get the satisfying big-log type of fecal matter that goes PLOP and feels relief coming out. Sometimes tho I get these little rabbitpellet shits that come out in little tiny round pieces going pink-dunk-dunk-plink. What gives? I rather make a nice big log, the kind that splits in half as it goes down the toilet drain. Any advice?

Re:Attack? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108081)

Any advice?

More cheese.

Re:Attack? (1)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about 6 months ago | (#45108279)

How is this an attack against Facebook? Are they competing for the title of "most hated social network"?

No, they're competing with other social network providers over advertisement dollars.

It's now becoming so hard to avoid joining Google+ that they pretty much don't have to compete for users. If you're using the Internet you're probably going to join Google+ within the next few months, possibly by accident.

Re:Attack? (2)

game kid (805301) | about 6 months ago | (#45108747)

It's a direct attack on the people who search, get their mail, and watch videos through Google, and a direct love letter to Facebook and their vile business model.

Re:Attack? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#45109833)

Because you are not the customer, you are the product. This is something their true customers, the advertisers, will want.

No Thanks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45107881)

Back to not using social media again.

Re:No Thanks! (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 6 months ago | (#45108023)

And start to upload all twisted images you have. Nice scenario, but why is there a dead cow in it?

Re:No Thanks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108055)

The dead cow is a metaphor, inninit? I mean, really, it's a bleeding metaphor.

Opt in? (3, Informative)

Peter H.S. (38077) | about 6 months ago | (#45107885)

As I read the ToS, this is an opt in. So if you for some reason want to show your google+ friends, followers, or the world that you "+1" something, your can turn this feature on.

Re:Opt in? (5, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about 6 months ago | (#45107915)

no, you have it backwards. you are opted in by default, you have to opt out.

The default setting for "Shared Endorsements" is to use your google+ information in ads.

do no evil, huh?

Re:Opt in? (3, Informative)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 6 months ago | (#45107949)

They've effectively been doing it already with the play store. You can see if any of the people in your circles have added a +1 to any of the apps. It's actually pretty handy.

Re:Opt in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108015)

Dammit! I shouldn't have downloaded the "CDC STD Treatment Guide" app from the Google play store.

Re:Opt in? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45107975)

no, you have it backwards. you are opted in by default, you have to opt out.

The default setting for "Shared Endorsements" is to use your google+ information in ads.

do no evil, huh?

No, you are wrong. The checkbox is off, you have to opt-in. That doesn't mean they won't change that at a later date, though.

Re:Opt in? (5, Informative)

rubycodez (864176) | about 6 months ago | (#45107997)

wrong. if your check box is off that merely means you disabled it prior to this announcement, probably when you joined, but look it up, FACT the default has always been for that setting to be ON when you joined gooogle+. it is ON by default..

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57607100-93/google-wants-to-sell-more-ads-using-your-name-and-profile/ [cnet.com]

google: do evil

Re:Opt in? (3, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 6 months ago | (#45108041)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the last time I went through it that it was on by default. As I mentioned above, they only used it for thing on the Play store though. If people are "+1"ing businesses and products though, what is their intention ... who are they indicating "approval" too? I suppose it might just be a way of bookmarking something for themselves, but I always hought it was more meant for the subject of the approval and others to see anyway.

Google Apps accounts are opted out (1)

alostpacket (1972110) | about 6 months ago | (#45109011)

It seems Google Apps accounts are opted out by default, but Gmail and other regular Google accounts may be opted in by default.

Still, they have made it very clear how to turn it off, and you would still need to comment, +1, or follow something for "Sharing" to kick in. I can kinda see how it's a nuisance, but they are being very up-front about it and making sure all user are notified via several notification methods.

I'm more bothered by the half-assed attempt to tie my Google account and real name to things like YouTube. Those prompts are (still) down right infuriating (and buggy, a few times I thought it might have change my YouTube account name).

This however, is hardly a blip for me. (Although to be fair, I use an Apps account).

Re:Opt in? (2, Insightful)

Peter H.S. (38077) | about 6 months ago | (#45108153)

google: do evil

Oh, so now the bar for doing evil is set at "being allowed to voluntarily add a photo to your google product reviews."

If that is your definition of evil then I wonder; do you have any words left for describing what was going on in the Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek and Treblinka death camps.

Re:Opt in? (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 6 months ago | (#45108171)

I don't mind "opt-in" in the form of stepping through the settings on sign-up where you are shown the option checked and need to un-check it, but I'm not sure if that's what's done here. I usually manually step through the settings for stuff, but I don't remember being walked through it on first use. Opt-in without that important step is at least somewhat slimy.

Re:Opt in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108577)

You still would have to +1 something for this to take effect on that +1 only (it's not retroactive). What is more opt-in than that? How many confirmation dialogues do you need?

Re:Opt in? (3, Informative)

Peter H.S. (38077) | about 6 months ago | (#45107983)

Well, I just looked at my google+ account: "Shared Endorsement" is "off" on my account, even though I accepted the new ToS. The ToS I received stated it was something I could enable if I wished.
Doesn't seem evil to me.

Re:Opt in? (3, Informative)

rubycodez (864176) | about 6 months ago | (#45107993)

that just means you disabled that setting, likely when you joined google+. that doesn't change the fact that the default is for it to be on. look it up.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57607100-93/google-wants-to-sell-more-ads-using-your-name-and-profile/ [cnet.com]

Re:Opt in? (5, Insightful)

Peter H.S. (38077) | about 6 months ago | (#45108099)

The whole point of pressing "+1" is that other people can see your vote. It is like writing a product review on Amazon; doesn't make much sense if your default setting for writing reviews or pressing "+1" is "that no one can see what you do".

But google makes it very easy to turn it off if you want (superb user panel IMHO).

So the only news is that you now can allow your photo etc. to show up on the "endorsement" like a product, or a political cause. You actually have to write a review first using your google account for this ever to happen, even if you have "Shared Endorsements" activated.

Not something for me, but I am sure that there are some who get a kick out of seeing their own face and review among google search results.

Re:Opt in? (2)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | about 6 months ago | (#45108017)

I'm opted out by default. The setting is unchecked without me having to change anything. Presumably it's the same for Peter H.S. too.

Re:Opt in? (1)

Technician (215283) | about 6 months ago | (#45108703)

Time to watermark all your photos with Copyright 2013 on them.

Step it up (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45109159)

Time to watermark all your photos with Copyright 2013 on them.

No, time to watermark all your photos with Copyright Disney 2013. Google wont care about individual photographers copyrights any more than Hot Topic does, but even Google hesitates over a copyright fight with the Mouse. (enough so that you might even find your photos yanked if you do that)

Re:Step it up (1)

timmyf2371 (586051) | about 6 months ago | (#45110213)

I realise (think) your comment is partly in jest, but in theory, such an action could be legally interpreted as assigning copyright of your photos to Disney which could mean they would be able to use your photos in much the same way as Google wants to.

Re:Opt in? (1)

davidshewitt (1552163) | about 6 months ago | (#45109917)

Actually, I went to the setting to opt out, and I found that I was already opted out "based on my current activity." So they've seen that I don't like that sort of thing (because I've opted out in the past) and respected that preference.

Re:Opt in? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45107971)

As I read the ToS, this is an opt in. So if you for some reason want to show your google+ friends, followers, or the world that you "+1" something, you can turn this feature on.

Let me highlight that for you.
(and yes, I just checked my google settings, and it seems to be off by default)

Re:Opt in? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45107989)

It seems to be opt-out for me, I went straight to the settings and it was turned on by default.

Re:Opt in? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108003)

Quoting the ToS:

When it comes to shared endorsements in ads, you can control the use of your Profile name and photo via the Shared Endorsements setting. If you turn the setting to “off,” your Profile name and photo will not show up on that ad for your favorite bakery or any other ads. This setting only applies to use in ads, and doesn’t change whether your Profile name or photo may be used in other places such as Google Play.

Emphasis mine. You have to turn if off, so it is opt-out. Evil. As expected. Please note, this option is only shown if you have a Google+ account. A plain old google/gmail account is "safe".

Re:Opt in? (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 6 months ago | (#45108957)

Don't complete your profile nor give em your real name. I haven't nor will do it. They keep bugging me to finish the damn thing but it's finished as far as I'm willing to go.

Re:Opt in? (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 6 months ago | (#45109767)

When I clicked the link explaining the detailed changes in ToS, I noticed 2 things that you forgot to mention. First, your quoted section actually links directly to the page where you can turn this setting off. Secondly, it's not the ToS themselves, but an explanation of the changes, which I've gotten a popup for on multiple pages through Google's services.

Re:Opt in? (3, Interesting)

JanneM (7445) | about 6 months ago | (#45108149)

Actually some people where opted out by default. I and others were opted in. There's no discernible pattern I can figure out for who was opt-in and who was opt-out. It does not depend on what you already agreed to previously, and it does not seem to depend on the jurisdiction where you live.

Re:Opt in? (5, Informative)

BradMajors (995624) | about 6 months ago | (#45108467)

You can only partially opt-out. Google is intending to use your name and picture without your consent:

  "This setting only applies to use in ads, and doesn't change whether your Profile name or photo may be used in other places such as Google Play,"

It isn't that bad (4, Interesting)

Chemisor (97276) | about 6 months ago | (#45107905)

This only happens when you participate in a similar activity, such as using +1, writing a review, or following a product. These actions already act as endorsements within your circles; the new ads only make them more explicit. In my view, this is merely yet another reason to avoid putting anything on your Google+ profile, if you needed one. All this spying and marketing is slowly but surely making social network users shut up - a very good thing indeed.

Re:It isn't that bad (1)

glavenoid (636808) | about 6 months ago | (#45107939)

What is "following a product" and what incentive does a person have to do such a thing?

Re:It isn't that bad (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 6 months ago | (#45108049)

I think businesses sometimes have contests, etc for following them. It's also good to get product updates from companies that have products that interest you. Tips, sales, etc.

Re:It isn't that bad (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | about 6 months ago | (#45108107)

NY comic con thought it should tweet from visitors accounts. this means if you ever look up a product on amazon all your friends know you were surfing for (insert fetish here).

Companies are trying to force you to support their products so they can cheap out of advertising as real advertising is about 5% successful(on a good day).

Word of mouth is the best advertising So by crosslinking into your social networks companies can advertise with words that appear to be coming out of your mouth.

I have avoided social networks for just this reason. people think I am paranoid but damn sometimes it sucks to be right.

Re:It isn't that bad (1)

ArtDent (83554) | about 6 months ago | (#45109859)

I believe it means adding a page for a product to one of your circles. If your privacy settings are such that other people would see what's in your circles, then the same people would be able to see your identity in such an ad.

The big differences... (5, Informative)

OpenYourEyes (563714) | about 6 months ago | (#45107935)

It seems like there are three big differences between how Google is handling this and how Facebook handled this:

  1. Google is blasting the notice pretty visibly all over the place. Open a tab and you can't help but see info about it. It is in your notifications. They are making it loud and clear that this is going to happen, and being pretty transparent about what it means.
  2. Google is making it easy to opt out. If you opted out of some things, or if you're in an apps domain, you're already opted out. If not, there are prominent links telling you how to opt out of this.
  3. This is only happening for public activities. You can argue if a +1 or a review should be public or if it violates Google's own concept of circles, but they're making it clear this won't apply to things you share privately.

I may have issues with how they're forcing some activities to be public only, but I can't fault them for trying to make it very clear what is public, what is private, and how they intend to respect the difference between the two.

Re:The big differences... (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#45108119)

...what is public, what is private, and how they intend to respect the difference between the two.

They don't. It all goes to Utah... On the internet, everything is public.

Re:The big differences... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108927)

Evidently the truth is flamebait... Who'd a thunk?

Re:The big differences... (3, Interesting)

moteyalpha (1228680) | about 6 months ago | (#45108161)

Vast amounts of personal information are already available on the internet. The focus is to monetize what is publicly available. The issue seems to be -who- gains from what is laying around in the open or what can be inferred. The present model seems to revolve about connecting products to sales and taking a cut. That does not seem to be a sustainable gain. It requires that the consumer be actively involved in the process and people can simply stop using the internet without dying. The internet has exposed almost every person to scrutiny. Information does not act by itself. It is the motives and real world actions of those who observe that information that matter.
I'm going to hang up this phone, and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see.

Few advantages? (1)

ByTor-2112 (313205) | about 6 months ago | (#45107953)

If by few advantages you mean in addition to having a superior mobile app, better website, yes it is a small thing.

If someone is going to get your info, it may as well be the same company who knows how often you search for midget porn as well (you, not me).

Re:Few advantages? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 6 months ago | (#45108255)

I figure it's trading some privacy for a service, so you may as well make the deal that gives you personally the best value for your information. I got into the free Google Apps thing before they stopped offering it, so it's an easy decision for me, and probably for people that really like GMail and Google Calendar as well. I know people with kids that couldn't live without Calendar for scheduling activities.

Re:Few advantages? (1)

ByTor-2112 (313205) | about 6 months ago | (#45109687)

Exactly. After years of mooching free DNS and mail servers from friends, I switched to the google apps account I had created years before and never used. It works great and I don't have to worry about my ISP ever turning off my service for running "unauthorized servers", plus google runs the spam filters for me. There is no such thing as a free lunch, so get the best value for it.

Google appears to be the most up-front about their privacy options and IMO has the best interface for controlling it.

The next steps for google. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45107985)

1. You can't opt-out of your Google+ information being used for ads.
2. Your search history, most recently visited web pages and all your bookmarks are automatically shared via Google+. It will be an opt-in program.
3. Now you can't opt-out. This feature will be enabled for all users.
4. All your emails sent to your Gmail address will be automatically copied over to your Google+ page for the public to see. It will be an opt-in program.
5. Now you can't opt-out. This feature will be enabled for all users.
6. Your computer/phone/google glass will automatically be streaming audio/video to your google+ hangout whenever those devices are switched on. It will be an opt-in program.
7. Now you can't opt-out. This feature will be enabled for all users.
8. Oh wow! Google developed a neural interface that can translates your innermost thoughts into words. This interface will automatically post all your most private thoughts onto your google+ page. It will be an opt-in program.
9. Now you can't opt-out. This feature will be enabled for all users.
10. Introducing google Borg. I complete and total neural interface that allows google to control your thoughts and your body. The google+ collective will modulate your daily activities for maximum efficiency and benefit to society. It will be an opt-in program.
11. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated!

Re: The next steps for google. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110013)

It' the colon-ization of the internet. Evil is the new good. Private is the new public. Your opinion and your permission are of no consequence unless they can be monitized. They deserve no respect unless they can be defended in court and you are willing and able to do so.

You are not Borg because you have the option of peering back through the looking glass to see what things might have been, had you not swallowed the promise of democratization.

Remember when Macromedia was the new evil?

Does it impact photos on Picasa? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108077)

Does it impact photos on Picasa?

Not that big of a change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108101)

This is kind of what Amazon.com already does with their reviews, isn't it?

Joke's on them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108199)

I don't have a Facebook or Google Plus account, and there are no pics of me on the Interwebs.

Try adding my face to ads, I'll be impressed if you managed to do it. LOL.

Curious (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108215)

I just noted a curious fact.

I had a Firefox extension installed that kept me informed about the personal information I was sharing with the sites visited. This extension had a nice calculator, too, letting me check how much my personal information was worth for Google and Facebook advertisers, so I could restrict the settings and diminish my "value" as an ad target.

Before installing the plug-in I was worth more than 750$/year for Google and 134$/year for Facebook. After "closing" the holes, my value as ad target had dropped to 70$/year for Google and 0$ for Facebook.

I probably installed this extension one year ago. I didn't check it often. I just knew it was there because I saw the icon in the Firefox bar. Today I noted that it's not there anymore. Checking the "Extensions" it appears that it has been actually disabled. Not by me, that's for sure.

I believe there must be some "incompatibility" with the latest Firefox release, although normally Firefox informs me when an extension is disabled. Probably there are "software incompatibilities" and "incompatibilities" of a different kind.

Very curious, indeed.

Re:Curious (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108535)

Dude has messed up FF extension and gets modded up? WTF.

Re:Curious (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 6 months ago | (#45109811)

I mean, really. There's absolutely no chance of him just not noticing it was disabled, or a bug in FF that disabled it without popping the notification, or someone else using the computer who ignored the notification, or a hundred other scenarios more likely than the grand conspiracy...

Re: Curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110061)

What he didn't 'notice' was the warning that the extension was incompatible with a Firefox upgrade.

At some point you have to sacrifice a little security for your liberty. No one makes that decision for you... unless they write code, legislation or ToS 'agreements'.

Welcome to the Anthropocene, when people care more about what they think they now than its logical consequences.

Countering (1)

Optimal Cynic (2886377) | about 6 months ago | (#45108217)

Can i suggest that as a counter you change your profile picture? Set it as a QR code of something abusive towards either Facebook or Google+, or a link to an article criticising this policy.

Re:Countering (1)

Guest316 (3014867) | about 6 months ago | (#45108481)

I was just about to suggest that everyone change their profile pics to gore or offensive porn. Yeah, use that in your ads! Hell, I don't even want to be on Google+, but there doesn't seem to be any way of opting out except deleting any google-related accounts you might have, since they're going to force you to join sooner or later.

Re:Countering (1)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about 6 months ago | (#45109073)

I suspect porn icon would violate some kind of googol TOS.
But I like the idea.

Maybe we ought to have a slashdot contest for icons and pix that protesters could use as their profile pic, items that say "Google Is Evil" or "Don't Believe this Crap" or photoshopped images of Sergey Brin with a Hitler mustache.

Re:Countering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108499)

I have mentioned your post to Sen. Feinstein and she is now drafting extensions to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Patriot Act, and next years NDAA to address terrorist scofflaws such as you.

Now Do Evil (1)

stkris (1843186) | about 6 months ago | (#45108303)

I had to login to write this. Many people online have for various reasons difficulties understanding the consequences of things like these. By having risky options "Default is On" and "You can opt out" they will be tricked into allowing Google to use their name and picture in ads. A company claiming to act responsible and "Do no Evil" should not need to do questionable acts like these.

I know some telemarketers exploit this and sell their products to people with mental problems, dementia and what not. We all expect Facebook to con people into writing things they later on make publicly available. But for Google to take a step in the same direction is actually much worse since we are stupid enough to expect them to do no evil and therefore are more easily duped.

Re:Now Do Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108357)

I had to login to write this.

What are you talking about?

-- Somebody who never logs in.

Re:Now Do Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108379)

"we are stupid enough to expect them to do no evil"

For some reason people believe this and give Google a pass, even though they have systematically broken it for years. An advertising company making their ads more valuable? Unbelievable.

Re:Now Do Evil (2)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 6 months ago | (#45109063)

I've expected Google to do this since I signed up for gmail. They're an advertising corporation and only make money from adverts. Does this bother me? Not really as I've taken steps from the beginning to devalue my worth to them for advertising purposes - the first step was to never complete the fucking profile - it has my handle and an avatar with a nonsense location of "Out of my Mind".

TOS and what Google Does. (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 6 months ago | (#45108427)

The last time I logged into Google, there was a banner on the top of the browser window. "Our Privacy Policies Have Changed" and such, in bright Google blue.

I actually read the privacy policy change.

Then I unticked the box. They won't be using my "face" in ads. Bam.

This is really, really hard to do.

I wish some other (nearly all) companies were this forthcoming with their privacy policy changes. Especially when they put the onus on the user to actively diff the changes for their own selves in order to actually find them. They don't even take the minimum effort to post a notice.

--
BMO

Sounds like copyright infringement to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108445)

Perfect use case for user-centric DRM. ;-) I can see a class action anyway.

There's a term for the Wall St. gangsters, the "white-shoe boys." What would be the equivalent term for Brin, Schmidt, Zuckerberg, Bezos, et. al. Silly Valley robber barons. Or are they still supposed to be heroes?

Yeah, I know, they're creatures of the vulture capitalist wing of the WSBs, and the governement, but there still ought to be term that captures the special character of the dot-coms.

So much for Dont Be Evil (1)

elloz (3382559) | about 6 months ago | (#45108501)

Silly Con valley is becoming a cellpool of NSA-complicit bastards and customer-betrayed scoundrels like Google and Facebook.

Don't be a sucker.... like those dopes who think 9/11 was done by 19 foreigners.

Don't use Google and Facebook.

My new profile pic will be (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108533)

My new profile pic will be
a picture of myself holding a sign, "Don't buy this stuff please" :)

fine by me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45108833)

i hope Google likes it as i'm pretty well hung...

goatse avatar (1)

SixGunMojo (177687) | about 6 months ago | (#45108955)

I think everyone should change their image to goatse or tub girl and +1 the hell out of every thing. I think google would respond posthaste when their advertisers shit themselves (pun intended) when that shows up in their ads

Mine was disabled by default (1)

Vektuz (886618) | about 6 months ago | (#45109317)

Just to add some info here, when I checked that page, that option was already unchecked for me by default. I'm pretty sure I didn't uncheck it. So Google clearly knows enough about me to know that I don't want that option before they even ask.

I'm so glad they are doing this (seriously) (3, Insightful)

greggman (102198) | about 6 months ago | (#45109459)

I would like all my reviews to show up publically when people search for stuff. That's why I wrote the reviews. I've put reviews on Amazon, TripAdvisor, Yelp, Booking.com, etc... When a product or service has been outstanding I want others to know it worked for me. When a product or service sucks I want to help steer people away from them.

Google's implementation seems great. I can choose to review something, I can choose to make it public or private or share it with specific people like "family" so that 6 months later when my mom is looking for a digital camera and types "digital camera" into google she seems my reviews. That sounds awesome to me.

Of course if Google only shows positive reviews that would be bad but AFAICT that's not what they're doing. I've certainly googled for stuff and seen 1 and 2 star ratings.

Re:I'm so glad they are doing this (seriously) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45109869)

There is a difference between using your review, and using your name, photograph and a quote from your review in an ad. And that that is actually opt-out i.s.o. opt-in is beyond evil.

Don't be evil... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45109469)

Just more fuel to the quest of being free of Googles services. But Google can be happy enough people in the world don't care about their private information. Ohh hey a 'free' service...

Evil Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45109555)

They are evil. They took the public thing that I said was public when I created it and are showing it in useful public contexts to ruin my public reputation based on the public thing that I posted. They have the gall to let me turn off the showing of the public thing to the public which makes no sense at all.

In reality this is actually kind of neat -- for example, in play store if someone in my circles has reviewed or +1'ed something it shows it to me on the assumption that I care more about people closer to me than .

Badddd Google!

Re:Evil Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45109709)

Kind of like a tiny fraction of one party of one house of one branch of the US government trying to stop a law that was passed and confirmed by the supreme court and then a president re-elected upon?

The only way to win is not to play (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110097)

So don't log in to Google, don't +1 things, and don't play their game. Then what they are doing has no value, and they'll drop it.

Re: The only way to win is not to play (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110279)

You mean what's mined is theirs, but I have the power to determine what I give up... in an all or nothing world in which I am routinely bombarded with the message that the use of the internet is advantageous if not absolutely necessary.

You mean that all good people who value their self image and its use or portrayal should do nothing in the face of this evil.

Truly this new age of which we speak is drought with peril when the new democratizing force is so easily undermined by commercial, dehumanizing concerns.

This must be what the Christians experienced at the hands of the Romans but with a twist; Moses is unmasked as a labor recruiter who found a captive audience and a boundless source of H1B visas.

"Do No Evil" -- The most effective free advertising campaign that never was.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...