Zero percent of Google's revenue depends on that. It doesn't happen. https://privacy.google.com/about-ads.html
Doesn't anyone do any research anymore before making accusations? Google plainly and clearly said NO DATA LEAVES THE PHOTOS APP. Anything machine-scanned there remains within Photos and does not get used for any advertising, data mining or monetization efforts connected with your private photos. They don't even try to put faces with identities unlike Facebook and now Microsoft. Sure they have the capabilities to, but they don't. If it changes we'll all know about it too. Nothing much Google-related gets missed here or elsewhere for that matter.
Repeat for those that didn't get it the first time:
- Google does not sell your personal information.
- Google is not data-mining your uploaded and PRIVATE photos.
- Google is not taking anything learned from your Photos to serve ads, nor even adding to your profile anonymized or otherwise.
- Google is not selling your photos nor using them in ads. (despite what Tim Cook implied)
- Google is not using your photos for financial benefit.
I know we've posted before, but I don't trust google. You can say they don't want to violate the law, but a $22MM fine is the cost of doing business for Googs.
Instead of going after Google and Facebook perhaps Cook should be going after consumers who seem quite willing to give up some privacy or deal with ads in order to not have to pay for services. It's not like Larry Page or Mark Zuckerberg woke up one morning and said 'I think I'll start a company that mines users data to sell advertising'. But how successful would Facebook be if you had to pay to use it? Moblie ads are a necessary evil in an age when people want everything for free.
No Apple shouldnt. That's not its DNA.
Facebook didn't have ads when it first started. TV networks don't mine my information either but they sell ads.
FWIW Google didn't have ads when it first started out either. They're experimenting with paid sites rather than ad-supported but I personally doubt very many people are willing to pay to use a site like Engadget or AppleInsider or TechCrunch etc. Most are much happier that some big company like Ford or Reebok is willing to foot the bill with advertising dollars so folks like you can visit and share thoughts here for free.
I know we've posted before, but I don't trust google. You can say they don't want to violate the law, but a $22MM fine is the cost of doing business for Googs.
The real cost of violating such a promise of privacy is much higher than those little fines. The WiFi/snooping and Apple/Safari debacles cost them probably billions in terms of bad publicity they didn't need.
A company like google which is heavily scrutinized by regulators cannot go back easily on those promises. It appears that they run the photo service as a defensive move to keep users attached to google services in general rather than as a direct money-making service - similar to the way that Apple uses maps to offer a more complete platform to their users.
What FUD am I spreading? That Apple is woefully behind when it comes to cloud services/machine learning/AI? Or do you think that's not important? I want Apple to kick Google's ass in what Google does best. Apple wants to create the ultimate lock-in? Make its services best in class like its hardware is.
You asked, so I'll tell you:
"But they've put themselves in a bind now with this dogmatic privacy approach and anything they try to do to improve services will be called into question if it involves any sort of data collection."
To me, that sounds more like FUD than anything Cook has said. In fact, the statement is such an obvious attempt at spreading FUD that it's hilarious!
Repeat for those that didn't get it the first time:
- Google does not sell your personal information.
Keep in mind that saying "we do not sell your personal information" is not the same as saying "we do not sell information about you as a person."
Information that relates to individuals as persons is sold by Google all the time, and this activity definitely contributes to Google's revenue. Any disclaimer that uses the term "your personal information" does not rule out such activities at all. That's because the term is quite limited in its meaning and scope.
Keep in mind that saying "we do not sell your personal information" is not the same as saying "we do not sell information about you as a person."
Information that relates to individuals as persons is sold by Google all the time, and this activity definitely contributes to Google's revenue. Any disclaimer that uses the term "your personal information" does not rule out such activities at all. That's because the term is quite limited in its meaning and scope.
They do not sell information about you either. They do sell targeted advertising but do not give the data to the advertisers. There is a big difference.
A good article about Cook's shortsightedness when it comes to this whole debate. Consumers are perfectly willing to give up a sliver of privacy for convenience, better services and a better user experience.
Almost every review I've read about Google's new photo app says it's better than Apple's. That's what Cook & Co. should be focused on -- services that are better than the competition so Apple customers don't have to use these 'evil' ad based companies services. As John Gruber said privacy should be icing on the cake not the main selling point.
Absolutely solid about what these %u201Cfree%u201D services do. What is the benefit-detriment ratio?
At what point are they collecting data to help you vs manipulate you? What is their profit motive?
I saw another report in which someone called Tim Cook an %u201Cenabler.%u201D That he didn%u2019t have to get his hands dirty - but how strange that they try to implicate him & imply what they call %u201Cenabling%u201D behavior is supposed excuse the actions of the %u201Cservices%u201D who data mine.
Take it to the business model for instance: When all discount coupons go online, a given store will know your price point.
They will know if you are an easier mark than your neighbor & only offer you perhaps a 5% discount while showing you images of kittens as your soft spot, & the harder sell neighbor gets 15%.
On the other hand, Apple hasn%u2019t got their bugs worked out of security vs service either: Try getting your Apple ID back (and all purchased apps), if it gets locked up.
Keep in mind that saying "we do not sell your personal information" is not the same as saying "we do not sell information about you as a person."
Information that relates to individuals as persons is sold by Google all the time, and this activity definitely contributes to Google's revenue. Any disclaimer that uses the term "your personal information" does not rule out such activities at all. That's because the term is quite limited in its meaning and scope.
:rolleyes: Zombie FUD. It just won't die.
Ah, so as an example what information about you as a person is Google selling? I imagine you have lots of examples to call on since they "do it all the time".
IMHO personally identifiable information is just that whether you want to call it "personal information" or "information about you as a person". They're the same thing and something Google does not sell. Please feel free to prove they are lying tho tho with those examples you have.
Trying again, to make this readable. Punctuation is beyond this forum software:
Absolutely solid about what these free services do.
What is the benefit-detriment ratio?
At what point are they collecting data to help you vs manipulate you? What is their profit motive?
I saw another report in which someone called Tim Cook an enabler. That he did NOT have to get his hands dirty - but how strange that they try to implicate him & imply what they call enabling behavior is supposed excuse the actions of the services who data mine.
Take it to the business model for instance:
When all discount coupons go online, a given store will know your price point.
They will know if you are an easier mark than your neighbor & only offer you perhaps a 5% discount while showing you images of kittens as your soft spot, & the harder sell neighbor gets 15%.
On the other hand, Apple has NOT got their bugs worked out of security vs service either:
Try getting your Apple ID back (and all purchased apps), if it gets locked up!
They have identifying data in those accounts, but the one place it does not get used, is to get your account back.
Ah, so as an example what information about you as a person is Google selling? I imagine you have lots of examples to call on since they "do it all the time".
IMHO personally identifiable information is just that whether you want to call it "personal information" or "information about you as a person". They're the same thing and something Google does not sell. Please feel free to prove they are lying tho tho with those examples you have.
Actually, the term "your personal information" is very strictly defined for legal and/or documentary reasons. It's not a matter of what you or I may want to call it. This is based on a well-known standard. For example, it's the same definition used by HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) regarding the whole issue of sharing medical information about patients. The wording is very specific for a reason. If Google wasn't "selling" information about you as a person (whether selling in the sense of giving direct access to the data or, instead, gleaning important information about you as a person and then making others pay for application of that information in an advertising setting), it would not resort to the tactic of not only specifying that it's talking only about your "personal information," but also stating the definition for everyone to see! Look at the link you provided (i.e., https://privacy.google.com/about-ads.html), and you'll see that they make it very clear that they are talking only about that information which may be "reasonably" used to identify you as person (e.g., name, email address, etc.). If that wasn't important to them, why go to all that trouble? Why be so restrictive? (Your preferred deodorant and your taste in underwear, for example, will not identify you as a person, so they can "sell" that information and still be true to what they've stated.)
Actually, the term "your personal information" is very strictly defined for legal and/or documentary reasons. It's not a matter of what you or I may want to call it. This is based on a well-known standard. For example, it's the same definition used by HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) regarding the whole issue of sharing medical information about patients. The wording is very specific for a reason. If Google wasn't "selling" information about you as a person (whether selling in the sense of giving direct access to the data or, instead, gleaning important information about you as a person and then making others pay for application of that information in an advertising setting), it would not resort to the tactic of not only specifying that it's talking only about your "personal information," but also stating the definition for everyone to see! Look at the link you provided (i.e., https://privacy.google.com/about-ads.html), and you'll see that they make it very clear that they are talking only about that information which may be "reasonably" used to identify you as person (e.g., name, email address, etc.). If that wasn't important to them, why go to all that trouble? Why be so restrictive? (Your preferred deodorant and your taste in underwear, for example, will not identify you as a person, so they can "sell" that information and still be true to what they've stated.)
Interesting that this wall of text still doesn't answer Gatorguy's request for a citation illustrating the sale of personal information by Google.
Actually, the term "your personal information" is very strictly defined for legal and/or documentary reasons. It's not a matter of what you or I may want to call it. This is based on a well-known standard. For example, it's the same definition used by HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) regarding the whole issue of sharing medical information about patients. The wording is very specific for a reason. If Google wasn't "selling" information about you as a person (whether selling in the sense of giving direct access to the data or, instead, gleaning important information about you as a person and then making others pay for application of that information in an advertising setting), it would not resort to the tactic of not only specifying that it's talking only about your "personal information," but also stating the definition for everyone to see! Look at the link you provided (i.e., https://privacy.google.com/about-ads.html), and you'll see that they make it very clear that they are talking only about that information which may be "reasonably" used to identify you as person (e.g., name, email address, etc.). If that wasn't important to them, why go to all that trouble? Why be so restrictive? (Your preferred deodorant and your taste in underwear, for example, will not identify you as a person, so they can "sell" that information and still be true to what they've stated.)
The problem with throwing stuff is sometimes it ricochets.
So since you wanted to talk about it, take a read thru Apple's privacy policy which also stipulates they don't sell personally identifiable information. Both companies would of course have the same meaning for it too as you pointed out. It's a specific term with certain meanings.
.So to answer your question some information that isn't "personally identifiable" can still be used by outside companies, combined with other information they have or purchased from yet other data aggregators and added together to figure out who you actually are. Sometimes that's really difficult to avoid doing. Sometimes companies make it too easy. Let's take a look at one you mentioned: Email and phone number.
Apple is reported to now share your phone number and email address with advertisers which as already mentioned allows those companies to compare it with other information they have to figure out who you are. So even tho Apple says they do not sell personally identifiable information they do apparently share information that can be compared or combined with other sources to identify you. http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/03/05/apple-to-reportedly-bolster-iad-user-targeting-with-phone-numbers-and-emails
BTW as you pointed out Google considers your phone number and email to be personally identifiable. Apple may have a different view of it or may rely on ad partners to respect their requirement that they treat any personally identifiable information as anonymized. Dunno.
So back to the original question: Where's your examples of Google selling personally identifiable information that you claim they do all the time. For that matter what examples do you have of Google selling any of your information at all?
Since you mentioned it, take a read thru Apple's privacy policy which also stipulates they don't sell personally identifiable information. Both companies of course use the same definition for it too. So to answer your question some information that isn't "personally identifiable" can still be used by outside companies, combined with other information they have or purchased from yet other data aggregators and added together to figure out who you actually are.
Apparently you didn't understand my question or the reason for it. I apologize for not being clear enough. I was rushing at the time.
I just wanted to point out that personal information as defined by Google (at the privacy link that you provided) does not mean the the same thing as "information about you as a person" or even "information about you."
According to Google and others, within all the information about you that can be collected or aggregated (including for example your likes and dislikes, your routines and other habits, your eating preferences, your goals, dreams and desires, your successes and failures), there is a very small subset known as "your personal information." Google has taken pains to point out that they do not sell that particular subset of information about you. My question is, Why not just say that we don't sell information about you? (A follow up question is, Doesn't this imply that they either do "sell" some information about you or at least want to keep the option open?)
Apparently you didn't understand my question or the reason for it. I apologize for not being clear enough. I was rushing at the time.
I just wanted to point out that personal information as defined by Google (at the privacy link that you provided) does not mean the the same thing as "information about you as a person" or even "information about you."
According to Google and others, within all the information about you that can be collected or aggregated (including for example your likes and dislikes, your routines and other habits, your eating preferences, your goals, dreams and desires, your successes and failures), there is a very small subset known as "your personal information." Google has taken pains to point out that they do not sell that particular subset of information about you. My question is, Why not just say that we don't sell information about you? (A follow up question is, Doesn't this imply that they either do "sell" some information about you or at least want to keep the option open?)
Both Apple and Google (and most others) have the right to share anonymized information with outside parties, and of course they would. There's a number of reasons they might need to do so and some companies give examples, tho those are not meant as limiters. Neither company says they won't do so, and probably for the same reasons. There's occasions where they do. But anonymised is not the same as personally identifiable even if there's a possibility a third party could have a way of using it as such. With that said sharing a phone number or email address with an advertiser is toeing the line IMHO and I'd wager you think the same thing.
Both Apple and Google (and most others) have the right to share anonymized information with outside parties, and of course they would. There's a number of reasons they might need to do so and some companies give examples, tho those are not meant as limiters. Neither company says they won't do so, and probably for the same reasons. There's occasions where they do. But anonymised is not the same as personally identifiable even if there's a possibility a third party could have a way of using it as such. With that said sharing a phone number or email address with an advertiser is toeing the line IMHO and I'd wager you think the same thing.
I have never disputed any of this. My discussion with you started as an effort to simply point out that, contrary to what you seemed to think at the time, Google's privacy statement (i.e., "we do not sell your personal information") did not mean that they don't sell information about person or persons. (And, by the way, you'll notice there was no mention of Apple in any of my posts.)
I have never disputed any of this. My discussion with you started as an effort to simply point out that, contrary to what you seemed to think at the time, Google's privacy statement (i.e., "we do not sell your personal information") did not mean that they don't sell information about person or persons.
No the point you made was "Google does it all the time" for which you still don't offer any supporting information. Your quote: "Information that relates to individuals as persons is sold by Google all the time"
At this juncture I'll assume your comment was simply a guess and not anything that's backed up with reliable sources or links since you failed to offer any despite a couple of requests to do so if your comment was true.
No the point you made was "Google does it all the time" for which you still don't offer any supporting information.
Your quote: "Information that relates to individuals as persons is sold by Google all the time"
At this juncture I'll assume your comment was simply a guess and not anything that's backed up with reliable sources or links since you failed to offer any.
I didn't expect there would be, nor that you'd do so now.
Are you still saying that Google does not sell information about person or persons? Well, maybe you have a problem with the word "sell." Would you feel better if I used the word "monetize?" If so let me put it this way: Google monetizes information about persons all the time. It means that they use information about person or persons to create a product or service that they then sell. And they do that all the time. Do you need proof of that, i.e., reliable sources or links?
Comments
I know we've posted before, but I don't trust google. You can say they don't want to violate the law, but a $22MM fine is the cost of doing business for Googs.
No Apple shouldnt. That's not its DNA.
Facebook didn't have ads when it first started. TV networks don't mine my information either but they sell ads.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/13153973/1/nielsen-to-expand-twitter-tv-tracking-to-appease-tv-networks.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/cable-companies-targeted-ads-data_n_3507487.html
https://datafloq.com/read/time-warner-cable-big-data-optimize-viewers-experi/359
FWIW Google didn't have ads when it first started out either. They're experimenting with paid sites rather than ad-supported but I personally doubt very many people are willing to pay to use a site like Engadget or AppleInsider or TechCrunch etc. Most are much happier that some big company like Ford or Reebok is willing to foot the bill with advertising dollars so folks like you can visit and share thoughts here for free.
The real cost of violating such a promise of privacy is much higher than those little fines. The WiFi/snooping and Apple/Safari debacles cost them probably billions in terms of bad publicity they didn't need.
A company like google which is heavily scrutinized by regulators cannot go back easily on those promises. It appears that they run the photo service as a defensive move to keep users attached to google services in general rather than as a direct money-making service - similar to the way that Apple uses maps to offer a more complete platform to their users.
What FUD am I spreading? That Apple is woefully behind when it comes to cloud services/machine learning/AI? Or do you think that's not important? I want Apple to kick Google's ass in what Google does best. Apple wants to create the ultimate lock-in? Make its services best in class like its hardware is.
You asked, so I'll tell you:
"But they've put themselves in a bind now with this dogmatic privacy approach and anything they try to do to improve services will be called into question if it involves any sort of data collection."
To me, that sounds more like FUD than anything Cook has said. In fact, the statement is such an obvious attempt at spreading FUD that it's hilarious!
Zero percent of Google's revenue depends on that. It doesn't happen.
https://privacy.google.com/about-ads.html
…
Repeat for those that didn't get it the first time:
- Google does not sell your personal information.
Keep in mind that saying "we do not sell your personal information" is not the same as saying "we do not sell information about you as a person."
Information that relates to individuals as persons is sold by Google all the time, and this activity definitely contributes to Google's revenue. Any disclaimer that uses the term "your personal information" does not rule out such activities at all. That's because the term is quite limited in its meaning and scope.
Keep in mind that saying "we do not sell your personal information" is not the same as saying "we do not sell information about you as a person."
Information that relates to individuals as persons is sold by Google all the time, and this activity definitely contributes to Google's revenue. Any disclaimer that uses the term "your personal information" does not rule out such activities at all. That's because the term is quite limited in its meaning and scope.
They do not sell information about you either. They do sell targeted advertising but do not give the data to the advertisers. There is a big difference.
http://bgr.com/2015/06/03/apple-tim-cook-google-privacy/
Almost every review I've read about Google's new photo app says it's better than Apple's. That's what Cook & Co. should be focused on -- services that are better than the competition so Apple customers don't have to use these 'evil' ad based companies services. As John Gruber said privacy should be icing on the cake not the main selling point.
What is the benefit-detriment ratio?
At what point are they collecting data to help you vs manipulate you? What is their profit motive?
I saw another report in which someone called Tim Cook an %u201Cenabler.%u201D That he didn%u2019t have to get his hands dirty - but how strange that they try to implicate him & imply what they call %u201Cenabling%u201D behavior is supposed excuse the actions of the %u201Cservices%u201D who data mine.
Take it to the business model for instance:
When all discount coupons go online, a given store will know your price point.
They will know if you are an easier mark than your neighbor & only offer you perhaps a 5% discount while showing you images of kittens as your soft spot, & the harder sell neighbor gets 15%.
On the other hand, Apple hasn%u2019t got their bugs worked out of security vs service either:
Try getting your Apple ID back (and all purchased apps), if it gets locked up.
Maybe time to read the SLA?
Ah, so as an example what information about you as a person is Google selling? I imagine you have lots of examples to call on since they "do it all the time".
IMHO personally identifiable information is just that whether you want to call it "personal information" or "information about you as a person". They're the same thing and something Google does not sell. Please feel free to prove they are lying tho tho with those examples you have.
What is the benefit-detriment ratio?
At what point are they collecting data to help you vs manipulate you? What is their profit motive?
I saw another report in which someone called Tim Cook an enabler. That he did NOT have to get his hands dirty - but how strange that they try to implicate him & imply what they call enabling behavior is supposed excuse the actions of the services who data mine.
Take it to the business model for instance:
When all discount coupons go online, a given store will know your price point.
They will know if you are an easier mark than your neighbor & only offer you perhaps a 5% discount while showing you images of kittens as your soft spot, & the harder sell neighbor gets 15%.
On the other hand, Apple has NOT got their bugs worked out of security vs service either:
Try getting your Apple ID back (and all purchased apps), if it gets locked up!
Blame the consumer?
For consuming & trusting. After they have been cultivated.
Yes. being a trusting consumer is also being a gullible & foolish consumer.
We are all chickens for the plucking.
Blame the chicken for being delicious.
Ah, so as an example what information about you as a person is Google selling? I imagine you have lots of examples to call on since they "do it all the time".
IMHO personally identifiable information is just that whether you want to call it "personal information" or "information about you as a person". They're the same thing and something Google does not sell. Please feel free to prove they are lying tho tho with those examples you have.
Actually, the term "your personal information" is very strictly defined for legal and/or documentary reasons. It's not a matter of what you or I may want to call it. This is based on a well-known standard. For example, it's the same definition used by HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) regarding the whole issue of sharing medical information about patients. The wording is very specific for a reason. If Google wasn't "selling" information about you as a person (whether selling in the sense of giving direct access to the data or, instead, gleaning important information about you as a person and then making others pay for application of that information in an advertising setting), it would not resort to the tactic of not only specifying that it's talking only about your "personal information," but also stating the definition for everyone to see! Look at the link you provided (i.e., https://privacy.google.com/about-ads.html), and you'll see that they make it very clear that they are talking only about that information which may be "reasonably" used to identify you as person (e.g., name, email address, etc.). If that wasn't important to them, why go to all that trouble? Why be so restrictive? (Your preferred deodorant and your taste in underwear, for example, will not identify you as a person, so they can "sell" that information and still be true to what they've stated.)
Actually, the term "your personal information" is very strictly defined for legal and/or documentary reasons. It's not a matter of what you or I may want to call it. This is based on a well-known standard. For example, it's the same definition used by HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) regarding the whole issue of sharing medical information about patients. The wording is very specific for a reason. If Google wasn't "selling" information about you as a person (whether selling in the sense of giving direct access to the data or, instead, gleaning important information about you as a person and then making others pay for application of that information in an advertising setting), it would not resort to the tactic of not only specifying that it's talking only about your "personal information," but also stating the definition for everyone to see! Look at the link you provided (i.e., https://privacy.google.com/about-ads.html), and you'll see that they make it very clear that they are talking only about that information which may be "reasonably" used to identify you as person (e.g., name, email address, etc.). If that wasn't important to them, why go to all that trouble? Why be so restrictive? (Your preferred deodorant and your taste in underwear, for example, will not identify you as a person, so they can "sell" that information and still be true to what they've stated.)
Interesting that this wall of text still doesn't answer Gatorguy's request for a citation illustrating the sale of personal information by Google.
So since you wanted to talk about it, take a read thru Apple's privacy policy which also stipulates they don't sell personally identifiable information. Both companies would of course have the same meaning for it too as you pointed out. It's a specific term with certain meanings.
.So to answer your question some information that isn't "personally identifiable" can still be used by outside companies, combined with other information they have or purchased from yet other data aggregators and added together to figure out who you actually are. Sometimes that's really difficult to avoid doing. Sometimes companies make it too easy. Let's take a look at one you mentioned: Email and phone number.
Apple is reported to now share your phone number and email address with advertisers which as already mentioned allows those companies to compare it with other information they have to figure out who you are. So even tho Apple says they do not sell personally identifiable information they do apparently share information that can be compared or combined with other sources to identify you.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/03/05/apple-to-reportedly-bolster-iad-user-targeting-with-phone-numbers-and-emails
BTW as you pointed out Google considers your phone number and email to be personally identifiable. Apple may have a different view of it or may rely on ad partners to respect their requirement that they treat any personally identifiable information as anonymized. Dunno.
So back to the original question: Where's your examples of Google selling personally identifiable information that you claim they do all the time. For that matter what examples do you have of Google selling any of your information at all?
Since you mentioned it, take a read thru Apple's privacy policy which also stipulates they don't sell personally identifiable information. Both companies of course use the same definition for it too. So to answer your question some information that isn't "personally identifiable" can still be used by outside companies, combined with other information they have or purchased from yet other data aggregators and added together to figure out who you actually are.
Apparently you didn't understand my question or the reason for it. I apologize for not being clear enough. I was rushing at the time.
I just wanted to point out that personal information as defined by Google (at the privacy link that you provided) does not mean the the same thing as "information about you as a person" or even "information about you."
According to Google and others, within all the information about you that can be collected or aggregated (including for example your likes and dislikes, your routines and other habits, your eating preferences, your goals, dreams and desires, your successes and failures), there is a very small subset known as "your personal information." Google has taken pains to point out that they do not sell that particular subset of information about you. My question is, Why not just say that we don't sell information about you? (A follow up question is, Doesn't this imply that they either do "sell" some information about you or at least want to keep the option open?)
Both Apple and Google (and most others) have the right to share anonymized information with outside parties, and of course they would. There's a number of reasons they might need to do so and some companies give examples, tho those are not meant as limiters. Neither company says they won't do so, and probably for the same reasons. There's occasions where they do. But anonymised is not the same as personally identifiable even if there's a possibility a third party could have a way of using it as such. With that said sharing a phone number or email address with an advertiser is toeing the line IMHO and I'd wager you think the same thing.
I have never disputed any of this. My discussion with you started as an effort to simply point out that, contrary to what you seemed to think at the time, Google's privacy statement (i.e., "we do not sell your personal information") did not mean that they don't sell information about person or persons. (And, by the way, you'll notice there was no mention of Apple in any of my posts.)
Your quote: "Information that relates to individuals as persons is sold by Google all the time"
At this juncture I'll assume your comment was simply a guess and not anything that's backed up with reliable sources or links since you failed to offer any despite a couple of requests to do so if your comment was true.
I didn't expect there would be, nor that you'd do so now.
No the point you made was "Google does it all the time" for which you still don't offer any supporting information.
Your quote: "Information that relates to individuals as persons is sold by Google all the time"
At this juncture I'll assume your comment was simply a guess and not anything that's backed up with reliable sources or links since you failed to offer any.
I didn't expect there would be, nor that you'd do so now.
Are you still saying that Google does not sell information about person or persons? Well, maybe you have a problem with the word "sell." Would you feel better if I used the word "monetize?" If so let me put it this way: Google monetizes information about persons all the time. It means that they use information about person or persons to create a product or service that they then sell. And they do that all the time. Do you need proof of that, i.e., reliable sources or links?