> I see this concern all the time. From every business-oriented point > of view. I'm surprised that anyone else doubts this. > > I thought it could pretty much be considered a given.
I was unclear - I was referring to AppEngine specific concerns. > Businesses frequently consider data one of their most valuable > assets. And they're reluctant to trust it with anyone else. And I've never said, suggested, or implied otherwise. We're discussing whether Google's stated policies (and previously technology) are "good enough for biz use" and possibly whether Google cares/wants them to be seen as such. While AppEngine as a whole may eventually make lots of money, the margins (and usage) may be such that biz applications don't make much money. If that's the case, Google may not want the hassle. To put it another way, Google may not be willing to accept a $50-100M risk for $3-50/month. Since that's the level of risk that Hawkett is suggesting.... (Yes, there is an indemnity clause in the App Engine agreement, but that's an agreement with the application vendor, not with the biz being served. Google, aka "deep pockets", will be sued.) > > Actually, there's nothing about the UI. > > That's in there. Maybe it's a recent addition? There's nothing about UI in Section 8, the section under discussion. The word "interface" only appears twice in http://code.google.com/appengine/terms.html , both times in Section 2, specifically in reference to not hacking Google's adminstrative console interface; that's not a reference to Google's use of an application's interface or the application and/or content to improve some (unspecified) user interface/experience.. There's a mention of user interface in http://code.google.com/appengine/privacy.html , which contains the following (quoted by Hawkett) "We use this information internally to deliver the best possible service to you, such as improving the Google App Engine user interface and maintaining a consistent and reliable user experience." however the information in question is"personal information" as used in http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html and defined in http://www.google.com/privacy_faq.html#personalinfo - it has nothing to do with Content or Application. > Have I mentioned before that I really like that whole "sole purpose" > phrase? I think I have. Yes, you have. However, you didn't mention that "sole purpose" is used throughout Google documents, including in places where a "nonstandard interpretation" would cause Google considerable harm. If they're not already on (court) record with a strong interpretation, they soon will be. On Jan 17, 2:11 pm, James Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 17, 2:54 pm, Andy Freeman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > data privacy is probably the number one barrier to > > > commercial cloud adoption at the moment. > > > Some supporting evidence would be nice because only one person is > > raising this concern. Maybe it's so huge a barrier that no one else > > is bothering, maybe the discussion is somewhere else, but.... > > I see this concern all the time. From every business-oriented point > of view. I'm surprised that anyone else doubts this. > > I thought it could pretty much be considered a given. > > Businesses frequently consider data one of their most valuable > assets. And they're reluctant to trust it with anyone else. > > > > When you put these two statements together, Google is able to > > > reproduce, adapt and modify developer contributed code to improve your > > > UI, and explicitly *does not* require content owner's permission. > > > Actually, there's nothing about the UI. > > That's in there. Maybe it's a recent addition? > > > However, there's something > > important missing from this discussion, namely "for the sole purpose > > of enabling Google to provide you with the Service in accordance with > > its privacy policy." > > Have I mentioned before that I really like that whole "sole purpose" > phrase? I think I have. > > > How about some acceptable wording from a service that provides > > computation and storage resources, together with a link to the whole > > policy? > > Ooh, nice question! > > I <3 nearlyfreespeech.net (I'm completely unaffiliated...the guy who > owns it probably hates me). But even they don't have anything as > explicit as google's. > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
