Home > Identity Theft > Google’s New Privacy Policy: Close But No Cigar

Comments 0 Comments

Last week was a pretty good one for the notion of privacy in America, which has increasingly become forlorn and tattered as a result of the advancement of digital technology. First, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Jones that warrantless GPS tracking of a criminal suspect by the FBI was unconstitutional, and then later in the week Google announced its new privacy policy, a model of simplicity and fairness with one sizeable flaw. Oddly, this particular decision by the court sheds some important light on the particular problem within Google’s otherwise admirable new privacy policy.

The decision of the Court in United States v. Jones was accompanied by two concurring opinions, one written by Justice Alito, and the other by Justice Sotomayor. The unanimous decision and ruling found that the government violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures because a tracking device had been attached to the defendant’s car without first obtaining a warrant. The placing of the device constituted a trespass, akin to breaking into someone’s home or filing cabinet.

Justice Alito’s well-reasoned concurrence went further, arguing that the notion of physical trespass as a predicate to finding a warrant necessary was outdated, and that beginning with the wiretapping cases of the 1960s, courts began to recognize that a more appropriate standard was whether or not a person had “a reasonable expectation of privacy” in a given situation. This approach, argued Alito, was far more effective in dealing with privacy issues in the digital era—as opposed to limiting the Fourth Amendment to the law of trespass, which essentially dates back to 1215.

Justice Sotomayor’s opinion spoke to the world as we know it, and she couldn’t have been more spot on. She wrote: “… it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties… This approach is ill-suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers… I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year.”

Justice Sotomayor separates the notion of intrusion from that of physical trespass while simultaneously untangling the often-confused ideas of privacy and secrecy. Why should anyone expect that the information that a customer has to provide to their bank will be made available to the Government without a Court-issued warrant? Absent that warrant, anything you intend to keep private should be kept private. Justice Sotomayor cited the decision in the 1967 case of Katz v. United States “[W]hat [a person] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.”

Justice Sotomayor’s logic preserves the sanctity of the Fourth Amendment in the context of the massive flow of digital information available on the Internet today, and as such, it is a very important opinion.

However, the Fourth Amendment restricts only what the government can do; it bears no relation to the activities or policies of individuals or organizations. There are plenty of other laws that in one way or another seek to protect the privacy of personal information from misuse by the private sector, but the best protection an individual can have is the attitude and policy of the entity to whom one’s information is voluntarily entrusted. Happily, but slowly, major players on the web are taking steps to protect your privacy, or at least to let you know just how and why it can be forfeit. So last week’s announcement by Google (probably the largest collector of information on the planet, outside of Beijing) regarding privacy is not only important, but very timely in light of the Court’s decision in the Jones case.

Google’s new policy is exemplary in its brevity, comprehensibility, and candor. If you disagree, try reading one from a bank or a wireless carrier (emphasis on the word “try.”) In simple language, it sets forth—among other items—the kinds of information being collected, how Google and its associates may use that information, and what you can do to limit that usage. It really does tell you everything you need to know, for better or for worse, and as compared to the policies and procedures of other information collectors, it seems reasonable and fair-minded. It does, however, embody one glaring mistake, best illuminated by the light of Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion.

Contained in the “Information Sharing” section there are assurances that information provided to Google will be shared with third parties only in limited circumstances. Google lists four circumstances, the first one being when, “We have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request…”

Hold on, Bucky.

What exactly constitutes an “enforceable governmental request?” This sentence should read: “We will share information with a Governmental entity only when presented with a valid search warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Such a provision would make it obvious that by giving information to Google, you do not intend to waive your constitutional rights, and it would make it clear that despite the fact that your information was shared willingly with a private sector entity, you reasonably retained an expectation of privacy against Government intrusion. If everyone’s privacy policy had language of this type, sooner or later every court—and every legislature—would remember all that stuff about the Fourth Amendment.

Of course, you may still be dismayed by the fact that Google is able to share your information with anyone at all, whether private or public. Arguably, that is the price we pay for all of the service and convenience that companies like Google provide to us, free of charge. But, that is a conversation we must reserve for another day.

The old saw is that the requirement of search warrants makes crime easier for the bad guys. In the Jones case, the defendant was given a life sentence for, among other things, harboring a linebacker-sized cache of cocaine—and that conviction was overturned by the Court’s unanimous decision.

And that is the price of freedom.

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team