News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google I/O 2017 by kbenson on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @03:02PM (#14361710)
> but they couldn't use your information unless you opted in to the new policy (which companies often do by saying "if you continue to use this, you opt in").

Yes. I'm working under the assumption (which may or may not be correct) that an official legal contract (and not just a privacy policy which may be enforceable as a contract depending on locale) would both require more formal acceptance (i.e. typing in your name and the date for a digital signature and a note that it's illegal to sign if you are not that person instead of just a click on a button saying "I accept"), and provide a much easier time for any individual wishing to pursue legal action against an entity that violated it (which should keep most of those violations at bay).

In other words, I see privacy policies as new, unstandardized, not taken very seriously by many companies, and possibly useless in some jurisdictions. That may or may not be accurate, as I have no legal experience.

Re:Google I/O 2017 by joshuamorton on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @03:07PM (#14361763)
Then wouldn't the right course of action be to talk to a lawyer and not ask google to charge you for something they already do for free?
Re:Google I/O 2017 by kbenson on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @03:28PM (#14361961)
Whether they charge you or not is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Whether they make it part of the standard offerings, or charge for it, some people would like some assurance that they have actual legal control over their data and it's harder to subvert than an accidental click, and they have some recourse should that data be abused.

This is not a problem unique to Google. I'm far more worried about Facebook than Google with regard to this.