Topic: Google admits privacy policy email glitch

[Simon]

Google has blamed a glitch in its systems after it sent emails about privacy policy changes to consumers who were not actually signed up to the company's services.

The emails detailed changes to Google's privacy policy, but were sent to other companies' customers in error, the company said.

The problem first came to light when customers complained on Virgin Media forums that they had been sent emails informing them of changes to Google privacy policies even though they did not have a Gmail account, but the problem also affected Sky customers.

Although Virgin uses Gmail to deliver its email service, users complained that Google shouldn't even have had their address, and that it was not their primary email provider so shouldn't be setting privacy policies.

Google has admitted the mistake was due to a systems glitch, but the error - a privacy problem in its own right - has angered some users.

"Let's get one thing clear - I am not a Google user," posted one user, dubbed Slated, on the Virgin forums. "So why am I getting this? Why does Google even have access to my account?"

Read more: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/372484/google-admits-privacy-policy-email-glitch

[Rik]

Good old Google...

[Simon]

I wonder if anyone will actually read it?

[sam]

I bet that was some simple database gaff, a wrong variable - ouch.

[Simon]

Indeed.

[Rik]

How many variables do they use, I wonder?

[sam]

Probably more than you'd every imagine. I sometimes wish I had gotten that job at google, but I'm quite happy at Cambridge (most of the time).

[Simon]

The job at Google would certainly have been interesting, to see just how much they do have on everyone.  You'd probably have been sworn to some 'official secrets' contract. 

[sam]

I would have thought so, I bet there isn't anyone who can actually access any users data at there will. I would have set it up in such a way that only people dealing with accounts can deal with users info, and only if they have issues. All the rest I would have set such that it was useful data to exploit but not linked to any specific user, or at the least in such a way that the people doing that kind of data mining can't see certain data.

[Simon]

Yes, there would certainly be safeguards.

[sam]

Or you would hope there were.

[Simon]

Indeed.

[Rik]

Like the one that allowed them to mine routers with the G-car? 

[sam]

To be fair, it was an exercise in teaching people about wireless security, right? 

At least they did admit to it.

[Rik]

Eventually.