Caution with Google Buzz: privacy issue

http://www.businessinsider.com/warni...cy-flaw-2010-2

At the very bottom of your main screen (Inbox) there is in small text a link to turn off buzz

Done ... Thanks

From a guy who believes in freedoms, protecting privacy, etc. )not me):

"Google Buzz" -- and the Risks of "Automatic Friends"

http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000680.html


Greetings. As you may have heard, Google has finally rolled out their
integrated approach to social networking ( http://bit.ly/bYTKcI
[Official Google Blog] ). Called "Google Buzz" (oddly, there's
already a different sort of "Yahoo! Buzz" - http://bit.ly/9iSN2l ),
this sort of service from Google was inevitable given the rise in
social networking.

Whether or not the goal of Google Buzz (let's call it "Gbuzz" for now)
is really to be a Twitter or Facebook "killer" as some observers have
suggested, Google is doing a couple of key things very differently
with Gbuzz -- one of them very positive, the other seemingly quite
problematic.

First the good part. Following in Google's tradition of promoting
open standards, Gbuzz has reportedly been created to be an open
platform that will have API-based conduits for third-party apps. So
all manner of interfaces can flower. Excellent.

Now for the not so excellent. Gbuzz, being tightly integrated with
Gmail, apparently makes the implicit assumption that your frequent
e-mail contacts should also automatically be declared as your
"friends" for social update sharing purposes, and by default creates
automatic "follow" lists on this basis.

Maybe this will work just fine for some people, but man, it might be
just plain dangerous for others -- perhaps especially those persons
who use a single Gmail account to communicate with both personal
friends and business associates. Is routinely updating your business
acquaintances with the same information as your personal contacts
typically appropriate? Doubtful.

To be sure, you can manually drop specific Gbuzz "friends" from your
list. Well, sort of. I didn't see obvious analogues in Gbuzz for
Twitter's "block" or "lock" functions, and there are a number of
mysterious "no profile" anonymous "followers" in Gbuzz that I seem to
have on Day Zero -- and who I can't seem to identify or delete in any
way. Who are they? I don't know! Hmm.

Of primary concern of course is the risk that users will
inappropriately share specific information in compromising,
embarrassing, or perhaps even hazardous ways, by not being fully
cognizant of whom they're actually sharing with at any particular
time. The Google Reader/Google Chat sharing assumptions have already
been known to cause some users problems, and the Gbuzz tie-in to Gmail
would appear to expand the universe of potential similar issues
extensively.

There are counter-arguments. Google's sharing options are off unless
you activate them, and you're under no obligation to actually use
Gbuzz no matter how much you use Gmail. And it could be argued that
people who want to share should be diligent about pruning their friend
lists -- especially automatically created friend lists!

But overall, my gut feeling is that, however much Google wanted to
encourage social networking within their product mix, the default
algorithm for friends selection in Google Buzz is wrong.

There should be a much more aggressive procedure to ensure that users
have vetted each "automatic friend" that Gbuzz adds to sharing lists.
Without affirmative approval from users (unless they specifically
choose to waive such confirmations) users' individual e-mail
correspondents should probably not be added to friend lists without
specific approval in each individual case.

As I've said many times before, defaults really do matter. I hope
that Google will reconsider the defaults that apparently are currently
implemented in Google Buzz.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
- Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition
for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein

Yeah yeah the rabbit!

Done ... Thanks Originally Posted by terbul

Ditto!!

There has been concerns about Gmail's privacy since the day it has launched.

The Google search engine stores each and every search a user makes.

The Google Chrome browser creates a unique ID during installation so it can easily store permanent data and create a profile of its user.

I'm not surprised this Buzz thing has major privacy flaws. All of those Google services will be combined for "convenient" use on Google Chrome OS.

Does that look like Big Brother or am I getting paranoid?

Does that look like Big Brother or am I getting paranoid? Originally Posted by Elsa

Did you say your name was Winston Smith?

Very nice heads up... I personally do not use twitt or Face...

http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-buzz-start-up-experience-based-on.html

First, auto-following. With Google Buzz, we wanted to make the getting started experience as quick and easy as possible, so that you wouldn't have to manually peck out your social network from scratch. However, many people just wanted to check out Buzz and see if it would be useful to them, and were not happy that they were already set up to follow people. This created a great deal of concern and led people to think that Buzz had automatically displayed the people they were following to the world before they created a profile.

On Thursday, after hearing that people thought the checkbox for choosing not to display this information publicly was too hard to find, we made this option more prominent. But that was clearly not enough. So starting this week, instead of an auto-follow model in which Buzz automatically sets you up to follow the people you email and chat with most, we're moving to an auto-suggest model. You won't be set up to follow anyone until you have reviewed the suggestions and clicked "Follow selected people and start using Buzz."'


snip

I went to my account and checked this out this evening. I don't use gmail other than I staked out some good personalized addresses when it first came out.

I have to say I'm VERY troubled about this (& any other application that presumes to know how I'd like my information shared).

I know a number of people/users that literally love all things Google; much like some of the Mac zealots. Obviously the feedback the company got was quick and negative. The question I'll be watching is what the long term impact on the trust level is for these mega-users? I know I'd be hard pressed to ever trust Google based on things I've read today.

Valuable info on all accounts. I'm just an "old economy" guy, so I don't claim to be up to speed on everything taking place in the social networking space. However, isn't the friend-sharing thing something that's already burned Facebook? Seems like Goog would have watched & learned, UNLESS the perceived rewards (oodles of advertiser $$$) are so huge that the attitude is users' sensibilities be-damned.

Second, Goog's indifference to privacy & info security will hurt it with the C-levels of the business & professional community. We're NOT all "friends" by any stretch. Corporate IT depts have accepted even the i-Phone very guardedly. I can see memos coming down, "No Gmail, No buzz," on company time or eqpt.

Third, no one has to use Goog, at least not directly. There are alternative front-ends for searches. There are alternative web-based e-mail servers. And as entertaining as Youtube can be, busy people may need their online time for other things.

For all I know, Goog may succeed in re-making the world. I'll just catch the next one.

Part of the thread I pulled the stiff from has comments about Yale and other colleges using gmail for undergrads. The "who owns what and copyright" was the basis of the thread. And if in 5-10 years google wants money to provide services and archvial access.