# Does Google massively violating your privacy via Google Play matter to you?



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 14, 2013)

Apparently there's a massive violation of privacy that happens every time you use Google Play to download an app but have to say I'm finding it hard to feel any surprise over this. Aren't we now in a post privacy age anyway, does anyone really care about this stuff now?



> Every time you purchase an app from Google Play, Google sends your email address, your suburb, and in many cases your full name to the app’s developer. That’s according to Dan, the creator of the Paul Keating Insult Generator for Android, who logged into his Google Play account this week to discover he had personal details for everyone who had purchased his app.
> 
> 
> “I jumped over to the ‘merchant account’ section to see the orders and realised one absolutely insane thing,” Dan writes in a post on his blog, Internet Hugbox. “If you bought the app on Google Play (even if you cancelled the order) I have your email address, your suburb, and in many instances your full name.”
> ...




Full article.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 14, 2013)

Kid_Eternity said:


> does anyone really care about this stuff now?
> .


I do.  I'd like my permission to be asked.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 14, 2013)

And "post privacy"?  What?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 14, 2013)

I'm not to keen as I've got my main e-mail account logged with the phone. If I had to send an e-mail addresses (which I shouldn't) I'd use my junk one.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

Its true. I have hardly any customers so I only recently got round to checking what info I could see. I have three customers in the US and my sole UK customer is from Wimbledon. I could email the two people who got refunds within 15 minutes to ask why they didnt like my app, but I wouldnt like to receive such an email myself so I never seriously considered doing it.

Although I have not tried to sell anything on Apples store yet, I am under the impression it will be different because unlike Google, Apple take a more active role in the sale. eg with Google I am entirely responsible for all the international VAT & sales tax issues, but I dont think thats the case with sales via Apple, they act as a broader agent/middleman of the sale than Google do.

In terms of privacy violations this is not exactly the most serious case I have heard of, but I am certainly not in the same camp as idiots like Kid Eternity who would sacrifice privacy and the reasons why humans value such concepts, just because of a stupid fetish for the ultra-modern and an arrogant, short-sighted acceptance of the world corporations would have us live in.


----------



## editor (Feb 14, 2013)

elbows said:


> In terms of privacy violations this is not exactly the most serious case I have heard of, but I am certainly not in the same camp as idiots like Kid Eternity who would sacrifice privacy and the reasons why humans value such concepts, just because of a stupid fetish for the ultra-modern and an arrogant, short-sighted acceptance of the world corporations would have us live in.


Don't hold back there!


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

Do I ever? No, especially not when important concepts are jettisoned with little consideration, and no doubt those of us with concerns will be deemed to be stupid old gits who need to get with the times.

Although to be fair there should have been ample time to consider the privacy plight. There is a tv drama thats some decades old now called Histry Man which started to explore the death of privacy, long before IT demonstrated the practical means by which it was likely to happen.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

Or to put it another way, let those who want to talk shit about the era of post-privacy be forced to make love in the street.


----------



## gosub (Feb 14, 2013)

Ffs its a credit/debit card transaction, what do you expect, or is apple (i), adding middle man charges in the name of privacy protection or(ii) run using bit coin


----------



## moochedit (Feb 14, 2013)

whats wrong with that? if you buy something online you give them your address, email, etc. wouldn't the bank require you to keep a record?


----------



## EastEnder (Feb 14, 2013)

> Every time you purchase an app from Google Play, Google sends your email address, your suburb, and in many cases your full name to the app’s developer.


Forgive me, but how is this "massively violating" my privacy?

Unless they're also outside my window, videoing me masturbating to granny porn, I would suggest that "massively violating" is a phrase espoused only by those with a rather tedious axe to grind.

I'm pretty sure that Facebook knows far more about me than Google, and I've no doubt they're equally, or perhaps more, evil in their use of that information. Unnecessarily over the top invective merely serves to diminish the credence of ones position.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

EastEnder said:


> Unless they're also outside my window, videoing me masturbating to granny porn, I would suggest that "massively violating" is a phrase espoused only by those with a rather tedious axe to grind.


 
I dont think google streetview cars have that data gathering potential just yet. They are more likely to detect your granny porn at the download stage, via searches or advert-related tracking cookies.



> I'm pretty sure that Facebook knows far more about me than Google, and I've no doubt they're equally, or perhaps more, evil in their use of that information. Unnecessarily over the top invective merely serves to diminish the credence of ones position.


 
I am no fan of silly ratcheting up of rhetoric, and it is especially bad when it comes to internet issues, especially stateside when debates including the one about net neutrality quickly become shrill and hysterical. However I wouldnt want to make the opposite mistake and let google off by focussing only on who the worst offender might be. In any case Google have broader and deeper data harvesting capabilities than Facebook, considering the range of services they offer, but the info Facebook can get their hands on has a certain personal/social quality that has potential for cruder exploitation and misuse.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 14, 2013)

moochedit said:
			
		

> whats wrong with that? if you buy something online you give them your address, email, etc. wouldn't the bank require you to keep a record?



If you buy something in a shop using a credit card you don't have to give your address.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 14, 2013)

I expect the absolute minimum of amount of information to be sent with any transaction. Clearly there is no need for this information to be sent. As long as the app seller gets the money connected with an ID that enables them to distinguish purchases, that's all they need. Name, area, email address? Ffs.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

gosub said:


> Ffs its a credit/debit card transaction, what do you expect, or is apple (i), adding middle man charges in the name of privacy protection or(ii) run using bit coin


 
From a developers point of view both Apple and Google take the same kind of share of the profit. The differences in what sort of middle-man they act as may well just be down to how these corporations decided to setup things for accounting purposes, especially as Google plugged into their existing Google Checkout merchant service when setting up their app store, whereas Apple did not have such a service so made a different choice. Some developers may complain that Google are doing it 'on the cheap' by passing the tax etc complications onto the developer, but thats another issues really.

From a consumer point of view, it is not unreasonable that consumers have not realised the difference. When they buy apps from the Apple app store they are completing a transaction with Apple, with Google they are transacting with the developer.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> If you buy something in a shop using a credit card you don't have to give your address.


 
But if you buy online you do.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 14, 2013)

elbows said:


> But if you buy online you do.


There's actually no reason you should need to do that either, which annoys me given the number of sites which insist you do.


----------



## EastEnder (Feb 14, 2013)

elbows said:


> I am no fan of silly ratcheting up of rhetoric, and it is especially bad when it comes to internet issues, especially stateside when debates including the one about net neutrality quickly become shrill and hysterical. However I wouldnt want to make the opposite mistake and let google off by focussing only on who the worst offender might be. In any case Google have broader and deeper data harvesting capabilities than Facebook, considering the range of services they offer, but the info Facebook can get their hands on has a certain personal/social quality that has potential for cruder exploitation and misuse.


I agree, and I'm not excusing Google by any means. I was not aware that these personal details were being shared with all 3rd parties from whom one buys apps. I'm not happy about the situation and would prefer it not to exist. I just think that describing the unwitting sharing of ones name & email address with 3rd parties as "massively violating" ones privacy merely detracts from occasions when companies are genuinely guilty of massive privacy violations. It riles me that commentators resort to such unnecessary rhetoric, it is ultimately to the detriment of us all - how are people supposed to be informed of actually serious violations of privacy when every cretin with a blog to promote uses such language? It's no better than Daily Mail headlines about single mothers & asylum seekers.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There's actually no reason you should need to do that either, which annoys me given the number of sites which insist you do.


 
Are there any that don't? I've performed very many credit card transactions online and I cant think of any where I didnt have to supply cardholders address. I was under the impression that its a rule imposed by merchant banking credit card processing systems of all kinds, most likely originally because internet credit card services started off as an extension of mail-order credit card systems, which require card-holders address (& often/historically that this address match the delivery address, for fraud prevention (ie bank loss limitation) reasons)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 14, 2013)

elbows said:


> Are there any that don't? I've performed very many credit card transactions online and I cant think of any where I didnt have to supply cardholders address. I was under the impression that its a rule imposed by merchant banking credit card processing systems of all kinds, most likely originally because internet credit card services started off as an extension of mail-order credit card systems, which require card-holders address (& often/historically that this address match the delivery address, for fraud prevention (ie bank loss limitation) reasons)


No, there aren't, but there's no reason they should need to. Considering that they usually redirect you via iframes to your CC site anyway, which then sends them a confirm, they should not be the ones storing that.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 14, 2013)

elbows said:
			
		

> But if you buy online you do.



If it's being delivered, then you'd be daft not to. But if it's a download why is it necessary?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 14, 2013)

EastEnder said:


> just think that describing the unwitting sharing of ones name & email address with 3rd parties as "massively violating" ones privacy merely detracts from occasions when companies are genuinely guilty of massive privacy violations.


It's a routine transmission of personally identifiable information for no good reason, on a huge scale. Debating whether that counts as "massive" seems a little pointless. It is what it is.


EastEnder said:


> It's no better than Daily Mail headlines about single mothers & asylum seekers.


Er no wtf is that


----------



## EastEnder (Feb 14, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's a routine transmission of personally identifiable information for no good reason, on a huge scale. Debating whether that counts as "massive" seems a little pointless. It is what it is.


There's a profound difference between a massive violation of privacy, in terms of numbers involved, and a massive violation of _my_ privacy, as implied by the headline.



FridgeMagnet said:


> Er no wtf is that


Headline grabbing sensationalist reporting is the lowest form of journalism, as is the Daily Mail.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 14, 2013)

EastEnder said:


> There's a profound difference between a massive violation of privacy, in terms of numbers involved, and a massive violation of _my_ privacy, as implied by the headline.
> 
> Headline grabbing sensationalist reporting is the lowest form of journalism, as is the Daily Mail.



It is a _significant_ violation of my privacy (or would be if I bought apps via Google Play). The thread title isn't really that important, but some people might consider it "massive". I don't consider it particularly ridiculous hyperbole in any case.

What _is_ ridiculous is comparing this to the actions of a newspaper deliberately publishing stories to attack a certain demographic group for political reasons. _Oh poor google it's like racism to attack them._


----------



## EastEnder (Feb 14, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It is a _significant_ violation of my privacy (or would be if I bought apps via Google Play). The thread title isn't really that important, but some people might consider it "massive". I don't consider it particularly ridiculous hyperbole in any case.
> 
> What _is_ ridiculous is comparing this to the actions of a newspaper deliberately publishing stories to attack a certain demographic group for political reasons. _Oh poor google it's like racism to attack them._


Fair enough, each to their own. You clearly consider it a far graver betrayal of trust than me, and I respect that.

I still stand by my assertion that the language used is unnecessarily provocative. Instances of online privacy violation abound in the modern world, I don't consider the unwitting sharing of ones name & email address to be the epitome of corporate misdeed.

I apologise if my Daily Mail comparison seems inappropriate, I just tire of the seemingly never ending hand wringing that one has to endure when reading about the actions of one large technology firm that will undoubtedly be repeated in similar form by another in short order.


----------



## editor (Feb 14, 2013)

And for a slightly less hyperbolic interpretation of the same story:


> "This is an interesting philosophical difference and users who buy something with Google Play are probably assuming they are doing business with Google – not the developer," said Chester Wisniewski, senior security advisor at Sophos.
> 
> "While I wouldn't panic, it's probably something Google should revisit," Wisniewski said. "A cybercriminal could create an app just to get data, and that is what Google should want to avoid."
> [--]


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 14, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It is a _significant_ violation of my privacy (or would be if I bought apps via Google Play). The thread title isn't really that important, but some people might consider it "massive". I don't consider it particularly ridiculous hyperbole in any case.
> 
> What _is_ ridiculous is comparing this to the actions of a newspaper deliberately publishing stories to attack a certain demographic group for political reasons. _Oh poor google it's like racism to attack them._


 
Developerist!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 14, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> And "post privacy"? What?


 
You know like post racial, where we're not supposed to give a shit about something that still exists because some big entity or figure has made it look irrelevant.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 14, 2013)

That's always how I assumed it would be, frankly.


----------



## mrs quoad (Feb 14, 2013)

So if someone was using, say, dolphin or skyfire so's they could stream flash porn (is this an issue on android? Imu it's the main driver for several App Store 3rd party browsers) then those companies would have comprehensive details of someone's tastes in porn & browsing / streaming / dl history, full name, email address, and location?

I can see that having some fruity potential.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 14, 2013)

I have started to limit my extra exposure to google precisely because of things like this.
Google already knows quite enough about me, including my urban75 habits into the bargain!


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2013)

Thats the main reason I often single Google out. A combination of search terms, site indexing, adwords, gmail, analytics, google+, youtube, chrome stuff and a variety of android data is a potent mix. The way they responded to street car wifi data collection issues was not a good sign, and I'm not sure how many people could possibly take their informal 'dont be evil' slogan seriously anymore.

This doesnt mean I think they are a complete monster or that the issue raised in this thread is a particularly bad one, just that their info power and gathering potential is there and should be kept a close eye on. They are a US corporation after all.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 15, 2013)

mrs quoad said:


> So if someone was using, say, dolphin or skyfire so's they could stream flash porn (is this an issue on android? Imu it's the main driver for several App Store 3rd party browsers) then those companies would have comprehensive details of someone's tastes in porn & browsing / streaming / dl history, full name, email address, and location?
> 
> I can see that having some fruity potential.



No, I don't think that's the case. And, frankly, anyone who doesn't go incognito when browsing porn is asking for trouble.


----------



## mrs quoad (Feb 15, 2013)

ChrisFilter said:


> No, I don't think that's the case. And, frankly, anyone who doesn't go incognito when browsing porn is asking for trouble.






			
				wiki said:
			
		

> *Skyfire Web Browser* is a mobile web browser which renders requested web page on a proprietary server and relays it to the browser on the end user's mobile phone which displays the content. Skyfire currently runs on Android and iOS.






			
				2010 review said:
			
		

> After downloading Skyfire, the app issues a warning that it contains age-restricted material, presumably because it can troll the entire Web, including adult content. As such, Skyfire Web Browser has an adult, 17+ label due to "frequent/intense sexual content or nudity," according to the App Store.


My understanding from that is anyone who's accessing flash-based video using one of these browsers is essentially getting a streamed html5 replay from a remote server / computer owned by the browser's company. Which is, itself, accessing the original flash.

My understanding from the OP is that that company will have the name, email address and postcode of people who're streaming (or 'accessing flash') using their app.

So... whether or not someone *thought* they were 'going incognito,' my understanding is that if they're using Skyfire (or similar) then they might - potentially - be opening themselves up to really quite a detailed and surprising set of associated informations. No?


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 16, 2013)

That might be the case on iOS I suppose, who knows? Only paedos and necrophiliacs need worry.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 16, 2013)

Skyfire doesn't store any personal info, it claims.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 16, 2013)

ChrisFilter said:


> That might be the case on iOS I suppose, who knows? Only paedos and necrophiliacs need worry.


 






Chris Filter, yesterday.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 16, 2013)

I thought Google+ was going to be the answer to evil privacy-invading Facebook. Has that been cancelled now?


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2013)

Some devs like the arrangement: 


> Barry Schwartz, an app developer and editor for the online blog Marketing Land, said he was pleased with Google’s policy of passing along customer information to developers, since it made it easier for developers to directly handle customer service issues, such as refunds.
> 
> “I want to be able to service my customers, and yes, they are my customers, not Google’s and not Apple’s customers. They download our products,” Schwartz wrote.
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/tech...-users-privacy-critics-charge/article8711361/


----------



## Firky (Feb 16, 2013)

*Does Google massively violating your privacy via Google Play matter to you?*

It should and it does - _but_ then I remember they're not interested in me as an individual but as part of the demographic model (Google's) I fit into. I would be interested on how much I am worth though, I am a prolific internet user - I wonder how much I have generated for Google and if would be possible to work that out.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 16, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I thought Google+ was going to be the answer to evil privacy-invading Facebook. Has that been cancelled now?


 
Like I said, post privacy world.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 16, 2013)

tarannau said:


> Chris Filter, yesterday.



No idea who that is.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 16, 2013)

ChrisFilter said:


> No idea who that is.



Oh, he said something about privacy is for paedos. Not exactly what I was saying, but fair enough.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 17, 2013)

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear Comrade.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 19, 2013)

Oh dear - apparently Google didn't like it being called a massive security flaw, and had a quiet word with news.com.au, who changed their headline to remove the "massive" and put "flaw" in inverted commas. The author doesn't seem terribly happy with that.



> The author, Claire Porter, added a comment on the story after its headline had been neutered to the nicer "Google 'flaw' puts users' details on display" that stated, "For the people asking how the story was amended: Despite the fact that Google refused to comment on the record, I was asked to change the headline (both the homepage headline and SEO headline inside the story), as well as the standfirst and lead (first paragraph). Google's issue was with the use of the word 'flaw.'
> 
> "Apparently a system that is designed to share users information with developers without their knowledge or permission and without explicitly saying so in any terms of service is not considered to be a flaw," Porter wrote.


http://appleinsider.com/articles/13...wn-story-of-massive-google-play-security-flaw

Hey, you don't want to piss _Google_ off if you run an ad-funded website that lives or dies on hits, do you?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 19, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> If you buy something in a shop using a credit card you don't have to give your address.


You do if you need anything delivered or buy a TV


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 19, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> You do if you need anything delivered or buy a TV


Yes, I already mentioned delivery.  But if you're in a restaurant, say, you don't.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 19, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, I already mentioned delivery. But if you're in a restaurant, say, you don't.


but
yes you still have to give you address if you buy a tv


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 19, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> but
> yes you still have to give you address if you buy a tv


Well, so what?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 19, 2013)

I was commenting on a point that was made that you don't have to give your address if you use your card in a shop pointing out that it aint nessarily so all the time and I've sen a few get pissed off when asked for thier address
edit: still trying to get used to posting from my tablet hence the odd typo


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 19, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Oh dear - apparently Google didn't like it being called a massive security flaw, and had a quiet word with news.com.au, who changed their headline to remove the "massive" and put "flaw" in inverted commas. The author doesn't seem terribly happy with that.
> 
> 
> http://appleinsider.com/articles/13...wn-story-of-massive-google-play-security-flaw
> ...



Now that is a big concern. I'm surprised.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> but
> yes you still have to give you address if you buy a tv


Yes, because it's a way of keeping track of who should have a TV licence.  So there's a reason (whether it's a good one is a different matter),  but the reason in that case is not to do with my having used a credit card.  What is the reason for needing my address if I'm not having something delivered or buying a TV?  If, for example, I'm downloading an app?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 20, 2013)

ChrisFilter said:


> Now that is a big concern. I'm surprised.


 
Even though it doesn't affect me directly, I'd say it's a bigger one then the OP.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 20, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> Even though it doesn't affect me directly, I'd say it's a bigger one then the OP.


I'm quite surprised it hasn't got more coverage - big corporation leans on news site to tone down headline. Not that it doesn't happen all the time in assorted contexts but Google has a lot invested in their PR about ethical practices.


----------



## editor (Feb 20, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I'm quite surprised it hasn't got more coverage - big corporation leans on news site to tone down headline. Not that it doesn't happen all the time in assorted contexts but Google has a lot invested in their PR about ethical practices.


Most big corporations do it, some in even less subtle ways. Press manipulation is extremely common, it operates on many levels and it takes on many forms. That's the very nature of PR.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 20, 2013)

editor said:


> Most big corporations do it, some in even less subtle ways. Press manipulation is extremely common, it operates on many levels and it takes on many forms. That's the very nature of PR.



Yes, but this is different due to the size of the Adsense empire. Google can effectively throttle half the sites on the web if this is the precedent they're setting.


----------



## editor (Feb 20, 2013)

ChrisFilter said:


> Yes, but this is different due to the size of the Adsense empire. Google can effectively throttle half the sites on the web if this is the precedent they're setting.


It sucks, but there's other means to cripple a site. For example, if a blog based around the products of an individual company pisses off that company, it can then become disenfranchised from getting review models.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 20, 2013)

It's nothing like the power Google has. Not only do they run the biggest ad networks, they're also responsible for driving a vast proportion of the hits any site gets. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that it's the organisation with the greatest ability to exert power over the Internet in existence today.

That's why this needs attention - the situation is bad enough as it is, but as soon as they show signs of expressing their own wishes about how they want to be seen, that not only affects the sites in question but had a chilling effect in terms of self censorship by other sites.


----------



## editor (Feb 20, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's nothing like the power Google has. Not only do they run the biggest ad networks, they're also responsible for driving a vast proportion of the hits any site gets.


Did they actually threaten the site with blacklisting?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 20, 2013)

editor said:


> Did they actually threaten the site with blacklisting?


I don't know what was said - probably nothing explicit. But they don't _need_ to; that's the point of chilling effects, the possibility of action, and even the general preference of somebody who basically owns you, causes self-censorship.


----------



## editor (Feb 20, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't know what was said - probably nothing explicit. But they don't _need_ to; that's the point of chilling effects, the possibility of action, and even the general preference of somebody who basically owns you, causes self-censorship.


I'm pretty sure that if Google actively blacklisted a large news organisation because they didn't like a headline there'd be a _massive_ backlash.

Has Google independently confirmed this story?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 20, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm pretty sure that if Google actively blacklisted a large news organisation because they didn't like a headline there'd be a _massive_ backlash.
> 
> Has Google independently confirmed this story?


They'd not be so dumb as to do it explicitly, but there are a million ways that Google could mess with you if they wanted to without you knowing about it except that your hits and revenue were mysteriously going down. They know you know that. Which is where the chilling effect comes in. Even if they didn't own your ad revenue and hits, they'd still be significant advertisers on a tech site.

They've certainly not denied it, and I find it hard to believe that the news site would allow comments about that on the story unless they were true. I'm quite surprised they did at all, actually - it implies there was some internal disagreement on the matter.


----------



## editor (Feb 20, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> They've certainly not denied it, and I find it hard to believe that the news site would allow comments about that on the story unless they were true. I'm quite surprised they did at all, actually - it implies there was some internal disagreement on the matter.


Lack of denial is not proof of anything, as well you know.

The fact that other sites covering this story (like this one) don't appear to have been threatened in anyway would suggest that we're possibly not getting the full story here.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 20, 2013)

I really can't see any reason that they would risk their reputation by amending the article to say "This story was amended at the request of Google. News.com.au took out the words "massive" and "huge" - referencing the size of the security 'flaw'. The word 'flaw' was also put into inverted commas." at the end unless it was true. I suppose it could, theoretically, be some sort of attention-getting device but it would utterly destroy their credibility if it weren't true - which Google would likely say something about, as it is them that look bad from this.


----------



## editor (Feb 20, 2013)

I think it's possible that_ someone_ at Google asked them tone the article down, although for all we know it could have been a local junior employee acting out of line. I can't think of any similar examples where this has happened. Can you?

However, I see zero evidence for your suggestion that they were threatened with any kind of punishment or retribution if they refused to edit the title and the story can still be found all over the web.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 20, 2013)

I didn't suggest that they were threatened with punishment. I made the power relationship that I was talking about very clear, and why it causes a chilling effect without any effort.

How would you _know_ if they did, btw?

It's certain that somebody at Google asked them to tone the article down.


----------

