https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Which parts are a problem? Would following substitutions be enough to fix the problem? (I cannot edit it anymore, checking for future)
"This is a blatant lie." -> "This is clearly untrue."
"malicious tracking of users who explicitly demanded to stop doing this" - drop "malicious"
I think that "evil and/or totalitarian regimes" is OK there.
This is true of one's employer in general, no? "this data" is theoretically all related to one's work.*
If a gov't approached your employer and asked for whatever they have on file, they could/would be compelled to provide it.
* My spouse has done employment law in the past and likes to remind me _never_ to use work email for personal matters because the can and _will_ pull up a log of my activity should the need ever arise.
Which is why people don't want Google to keep it on file.
(1) some companies simply to not start storing data that users explicitly requested to stop collecting (so it cannot be leaked)
(2) some companies are not operating for example in China so there is lower risk of forwarding your data to their government
(3) some companies operate in places where police/intelligence agencies at least pretend to not have direct access to private data without order from a proper court. Not some "allow all" like USA has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
This is a blatant lie. Google will share this data with law enforcement, also on request by evil and/or totalitarian regimes.
---------
And even for use within a Google:
It is as believable as FB promising to not use 2FA for other purposes.
And malicious tracking of users who explicitly demanded to stop doing this is just another proof that noone should trust it.
It is likely that Google sooner or later WILL use search history for own purposes.
I am not even really trusting that Google is not saving my location in real-time despite that I switched this off.