hardly fucking surprising.

I don't get why so many seemingly intelligent people think Google/Facebook/LinkedIn/etc's whole approach of "get a heap of users, then mine the shit out of their personal data for profit" is OK.

Because they are blinded by the free.

what about the businesses that sign up for google apps, PAY FOR IT, and still get ads, and their data treated like a common prostitute to share around with the world?

Ads in paid Google Apps are subject to admin control to whether enable them or not. Also technically speaking "prostitution" is a human only trait.

would it be more accurate if i said their personal information is whored out to the highest bidder?

No. For the same grammatical reasons and for the more important fact that they don't sell data or information, they sell ad placement that get populated with relevant ads determined by analysing said data. Advertisers don't buy the data, they aren't exposed to it, they are exposed to dashboards, aggregates, and abstractions, e.g "I want this product advertised to 18-35 year old males" then don't get to personally know their demographic.

guys in brothels don't get to personally know their whore, they say "i want a red head with big boobs" and pay the cash.

i still say the analogy is apt.

One: he's not just a "top guy at Google" he's Vint "I invented the internet" Cerf.

Two: the headline is highly paraphrased, which I guess you know since you've read the whole thing. Also sociologically speaking even that warped baiting headline is technically correct.

So, again since you actually read the piece, you'd agree that the point he was making is that "privacy", important as it is, is a subjective and evolving concept thus society shouldn't use it to dismiss or outright ban certain new technologies.

> certain new technologies

of which his employer makes/uses/promotes several.

just because someone did "good things" previously doesn't mean their actions and/or comments are all inherently "good".