Replies

That was standard overreaction by idiot politicians who need an issue to campaign on and a reason to pass another useless law. All of their issues are pure political grandstanding.

Totally disagree. If it had been MS, you'd be screaming like a stuck pig.

Google was up front in the beginning about every aspect of this free service that gives you a gig of storage. You pay for such generous service by accepting automated scanning of emails that puts separate ads on the page depending on the detected words. You know, kind of the way you already get clearly labelled ads when you search for a term.

Wrong. It goes way beyond scanning emails to put ads on the page. Google was planning on archiving some of the marketing data that it gleaned from your email. And since Google won't disclose what it was going to archive (such a model of "ethical disclosure" -- NOT!), the California Senate proactively forbid Google from violating your privacy.

MS had similar problems when it created Passport. The FCC and all kinds of privacy organizations had a fit -- despite the fact that use of Passport was completely voluntary. Your side was part of the litany screaming, wailing, and gnashing your teeth over big, bad Microsoft. But, now, it's obvious that you're a hypocrite. If it's Google, the darling of the pro-Linux crowd, then it's goooooooood; if it's MS, it's baaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

I don't have to swallow any hypocrisy. I think that both organizations should stop their aggressive marketing tactics. It's gone way too far.

MS had similar problems when it created Passport. The FCC and all kinds of privacy organizations had a fit

I didn't have any problems with Passport from a privacy perspective. The only thing I was afraid of was MS tying Windows use to Passport registration.

The worst part of this: all of you are complaining about the privacy implications of a free service that isn't even out yet.