1STnTENDERBITS

loquitur said:

The problem with patents like those held by VirnetX is multi-fold.
Not only were they purchased by a troll (i.e., a patent assertion entity [or PAE]
and also a non-practicing entity [NPE] at first), but they are overbroad,
which slipped by the patent office when issued.  

Are you sure about that?  I only ask because contrary to your claim of purchased patents, there are rumors floating around that the founder of VirnetX - Robert Short co-invented the patents in question.  In fact, that rumor mill claims that all of the patents held by VirnetX were co-invented by Short.  So if the foundation of your argument is less than factual, could you see how the rest could be viewed as suspect?  

latifbp said:

gatorguy said:

I would HOPE it's legally binding, but not entirely certain where the law stands on it. Not that it would matter in this case as the Student Privacy Pledge group itself came out and said Google is absolutely following it's commitment and the EFF is off-base on this one.
https://fpf.org/2015/12/01/future-of-privacy-forum-statement-regarding-electronic-frontier-foundation-student-privacy-complaint/

These a--holes can say that, but my son was using his Google account to login to YouTube and started getting marketed YouTube videos with nudity so, um, I think they've got some problems on their hands.

Oooookay.  Here's a pro tip:  Making up stuff just to push a narrative.  Yeah, not really effective.  People know you're lying.  Even those who hate Google know your anecdote is fabricated.  Try harder.