Ending tussle, Google adds privacy link to home page

Google has made peace with privacy advocates, and it did so without cluttering up its famously sparse home page.

The search giant had drawn criticism over its refusal to include a link to its privacy policy on Google.com. Some groups said that was a violation of California law. The company said then that it didn't think the link was necessary because its privacy policy was "readily accessible" to those looking for it. It could be found, among other places, on its About page, which was linked to from Google.com.

But Google quietly changed its stance and added a privacy link on Thursday, while privacy advocates were focusing their attention on another Google issue: a New York judge ordered the company to hand over information about YouTube videos and users to media giant Viacom as part of their copyright dispute.

Google announced the privacy link decision on its corporate blog and public policy blog. On the former, Google Vice President Marissa Mayer said founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin had told her that she could add "Privacy" to the home page, but only if she subtracted another word -- to keep the word count on Google.com at 28.  So, as pictured above, the company removed "Google" from the copyright line at the bottom of its home page and added "Privacy." She said that offering "easy access to our privacy information without any added homepage heft is a clear win for our users and an enhancement to your experience."

Mayer also explained:

Google values our users' privacy first and foremost. Trust is the basis of everything we do, so we want you to be familiar and comfortable with the integrity and care we give your personal data. We added this link both to our homepage and to our results page to make it easier for you to find information about our privacy principles. The new "Privacy" link goes to our Privacy Center, which was revamped earlier this year to be more straightforward and approachable, with videos and a non-legalese overview to make sure you understand in basic terms what Google does, does not, will, and won't, do in regard to your personal information.

Thus ends the minor tussle over valuable real estate: Google's home page. Privacy advocates get their link, and Google's top executives get to keep their home page clean.

-- Chris Gaither

Image courtesy of Google

Comments

[A]

This obscures the issue. This is hardly a victory for one's privacy! You must be kidding or perhaps the writer is under pressure to spin a positive story because who knows, maybe the LA Times keeps IP addresses forever too?! OR just feel like defending corporate power no matter what?! Because by any logical standards, this is hardly a victory for people's privacy in the world of the net! The issue, since I seem to need to make that clear for this journalist and his higher ups let alone anyone who is reading this, is not a matter of a link regarding what Google's policy is, but that the policy ITSELF of keeping people's IP is extremely faulty and hence disrespectful ITSELF of individual's privacy. It lacks a realistic understanding of how doing this puts people's private information at risk. The judgement that came down recently is hardly going to be the last. Nor is it the only situation that an archive of IP adresses leaves itself open to. Clearly people will need to form a strategy of opposing this corporate behaviour since neither corporations, nor the supposed "mainstream" "objective" media seems to want to come to grips with, let alone represent fairly. Tell the truth of the story. That would be a start! And anyone reading this, take heart, we can figure out a way to protect our privacy even if the mega companies seem to fundamentally have little concern for it.

[Domingo A. Trassens]

If we don’t want to convert Internet in an “incomprehensible jungle”, we have to respect the privacy of others. It was a good attitude from Google, it ended the minor tussle for the right way.

Domingo
http://www.comlab-corp.com
http://spaengclub.blogspot.com

[dingbat]

How we all would have laughed back in 1999 or so, imagining that one day Google would fuss in this manner over something as minor and obvious as an additional word on their home page providing more transparency and an improved user experience. Or did I miss the point of the digital revolution?

[Chris Gaither]

A, thanks for your comment. I can promise you that I came under no pressure from Google or anyone at the LA Times to spin this post in any direction. I simply wanted to inform our readers about the resolution of this dispute over Google linking to its privacy policy on its home page. But you do bring up a valid point: while this move does bring Google in line with its peers in terms of the home page link, it does not settle the broader debate over whether storing IP addresses is in the best interest of consumers. Google says it uses the information to deliver more relevant services and ads but some people oppose the practice as a threat to privacy. We went into some of the debate over this issue in the story (linked to above) about yesterday's YouTube ruling.

[Sensi]

It looks retarded to remove google from the copyright, lol. What is this 28 words sectarian policy? It seems pointless if not idiotic.

[Paul]

So silly! What responsibility does google have to maintain the privacy of people who choose to use their service? Folks act as if the Google search engine is a public service, as opposed to the private service that it is. If you don't like their service, use a different one, sheesh.

[Sensi]

@ Paul

They are laws about privacy around the world you know, that Google is a private service isn't a white card to collect scary sums of personal info "ad vitae eternam", even less without the end-user knowledge. Making available your terms of service and privacy policy on your home page is always a good move toward transparency.

[Paul]

@Sensi
If not posting a link to a privacy policy is a violation of the law, then I guess we all need to get ready to start signing EULAs at the grocery when we check out!

[Doug in Toronto]

"Google Vice President Marissa Mayer said founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin had told her that she could add "Privacy" to the home page, but only if she subtracted another word -- to keep the word count on Google.com at 28."

Uh, Marissa....have a look at search.google.com from Canada and you'll find out that 28 has become... 46? If you count the links at the top of the page (iGoogle, gmail and other junk), and consider google.ca to be 2 words,so... 46 it is...

I guess the 28 total was before taxes, user fees and surreptitious links to see if I'm using YouTube were included. Either that or Google Math has a bug.

[Nick DiGiacomo]

As the songwriter Tom Waits once wrote, the large print giveth, and the small print taketh away. And so it is with company privacy policies. They all purport to protect your "personal information" (large print), but at the same time claim exemptions when required by law (small print).

And that law - the real elephant in the room in these discussions - is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Content carriers (evil or not) will in the end always give up the goods on their users, since that's the clearest way to deflect liability.

It's simply naive to think that because a company exhibits a privacy policy that your personal information is protected. Given the egregious imbalances in the DMCA, that's like expecting a "private property" sign to keep the jackboots out of your house in a police state.

[Paul Motter]

People...

Unfortunately, it is too late. Our privacy has already been lost for good. While our government was given restrictions on how they could intrude on our private lives, there are no such restrictions placed on businesses. You would choke on your cereal if you had any idea how much corporate America already knows about you. They know what car you drive, where you vacation, what web sites you visit, what books you read. That kind of information is too valuable to their marketing efforts NOT to collect it, and sell it to the next interested marketer.

Every web site tracks IP addresses, most of the big ones store that information. Look at Amazon. They make recommendations to you based on searches you did 10 years ago. Do you think they make their money selling books?

I am not saying I agree with any of this, I am just saying there are things within your power to change, and this isn't one of them. If Google didn't even want the link to their privacy policy on their front page, obviously they don't want you to read it. They are banking on the fact that those who do read it are powerless to do anything about it.

What can you do? You could use a different search engine.