Google is following you.
Yesterday evening, Google announced a effective March 1. The new policy is consistent across the vast majority of Google products, and it鈥檚 in English; you don鈥檛 have to speak legalese to understand it. But, the new privacy policy makes clear that Google will, for the first time, combine the personal data you share with any one of its products or sites across almost all of its products and sites (everything but , , and ) in order to obtain a more comprehensive picture of you. And there鈥檚 no opting out.
This comes on the heels of 骋辞辞驳濒别鈥檚 new Search, plus Your World, a feature combining search results from the public web with private information and photos you have shared (or that have been shared with you) through Google+ or Picasa. See? I told you Google is following you.
So, what does 骋辞辞驳濒别鈥檚 new policy mean for you? Anytime you鈥檙e signed into your Google account, whether on a computer, tablet, or Android phone, Google collects information about you 鈥� that鈥檚 not new. But, come March, what you do on one Google-owned site will affect what content you might see on another Google-owned site. The head of 骋辞辞驳濒别鈥檚 privacy for product and engineering that integrating an individual鈥檚 profiles across 骋辞辞驳濒别鈥檚 sites will help Google 鈥渇igure[e] out what you really mean when you type in Apple, Jaguar or Pink,鈥� provide more relevant ads, 鈥減rovide reminders that you鈥檙e going to be late for a meeting based on your location, your calendar and an understanding of what the traffic is like that day鈥� (thanks, Mom), and 鈥渆nsure that our spelling suggestions, even for your friends鈥� names, are accurate.鈥�
And while it鈥檚 easy to see some of the benefits of the new policy, it鈥檚 important to keep in mind the other implications of the changes. For example, have you ever Googled something you didn鈥檛 want to tell your parents/spouse/friends/doctor about? Have you ever had a personal conversation over e-mail that you didn鈥檛 want broadcast to the world? With this new integration, your e-mail content won鈥檛 influence only what ads you see in Gmail, and your search terms won鈥檛 influence just what ads you see when you鈥檙e searching. As of March 1, your e-mail content and search terms could influence ads you see on any Google site. So, imagine watching a YouTube video with friends or family and suddenly having an ad based on what you assumed was a private e-mail conversation or a personal Google search appear. Yikes! And short of signing out of your Google account, there is no opting out.
What鈥檚 more, this data aggregation is not just about what ads you see, but as , it creates an even larger treasure chest of personal information ripe for government picking.
And what about anonymity? 鈥渞eplace past names associated with your Google Account so that you are represented consistently across all our services.鈥� But, what if you deliberately keep different names on your various accounts? What if, for instance, you want your e-mail address associated with your legal name, but would prefer for your YouTube account not to tie directly to you? Unfortunately, 骋辞辞驳濒别鈥檚 new integration policy will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to do so.
Don鈥檛 like the sound of that? and .
In the News:
- 骋辞辞驳濒别鈥檚
- 骋辞辞驳濒别鈥檚 Official Blog:
- Washington Post:
- New York Times:
- 吃瓜直播 of Massachusetts:
Learn more about dotRights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More 吃瓜直播 the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryAug 2025
National Security
Surveillance Company Flock Now Using Ai To Report Us To Police If It Thinks Our Movement Patterns Are 鈥渟uspicious鈥�. Explore News & Commentary.Surveillance Company Flock Now Using AI to Report Us to Police if it Thinks Our Movement Patterns Are 鈥淪uspicious鈥�
Company crosses a dangerous line by beginning to offer AI suspicion-generation functions -
Press ReleaseJul 2025
National Security
Free Speech
Court Agrees Trump Administration鈥檚 Icc Sanctions Likely Violate Advocates鈥� First Amendment Rights. Explore Press Release.Court Agrees Trump Administration鈥檚 ICC Sanctions Likely Violate Advocates鈥� First Amendment Rights
BANGOR, Maine 鈥� The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine granted a preliminary injunction in Smith v. Trump, a lawsuit brought by two U.S. human rights advocates who are challenging the Trump administration鈥檚 executive order imposing sanctions on officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The court issued the order after concluding that the advocates were likely to succeed on their claim that the speech restrictions imposed on them by the executive order violate the First Amendment. As the lawsuit explains, these sanctions violate the First Amendment by prohibiting the advocates, and other Americans like them, from communicating with the ICC鈥檚 Office of the Prosecutor, including by providing legal advice, expert analysis, and evidence. Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan are suing because the sanctions forced them to stop working with the ICC鈥檚 Office of the Prosecutor and indefinitely paused their efforts to hold leading rights violators accountable for horrific crimes. 鈥淧reventing our clients and others like them from doing critical human rights work with the ICC is unconstitutional, and we鈥檙e heartened that the court saw that as well,鈥� said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he First Amendment does not allow the government to impose sweeping limits on what Americans can say and who they can say it to.鈥� Under the executive order, people in the U.S. who鈥檝e devoted their lives to seeking justice for the victims of atrocities 鈥� like the genocide of Myanmar鈥檚 Rohingya people, or gender-based violence committed against Afghan women under the Taliban 鈥� could face stiff penalties simply for exercising their constitutional right to engage and advocate with ICC investigators and prosecutors. The international community, including the United States, established the ICC in 1998 to help maintain international peace and security. The ICC investigates and prosecutes crimes of the severest magnitude 鈥� including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes 鈥� when domestic courts are unwilling or unable to do so. Today, 125 countries have joined the ICC鈥檚 founding treaty, known as the Rome Statute. As the lawsuit explains, although the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute, it has supported the ICC鈥檚 critical work on a wide range of matters. This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine by the 吃瓜直播 and 吃瓜直播 of Maine on behalf of Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan. In 2020, when President Trump imposed similar sanctions, the 吃瓜直播 sued on behalf of human rights experts who were forced to stop working with the ICC. Our clients withdrew their lawsuit when President Joe Biden rescinded the sanctions, but a federal court in a separate suit agreed the sanctions likely violated the First Amendment. -
Press ReleaseJun 2025
National Security
Aclu Reminds President Trump That Only Congress Can Decide Whether To Use Force Against Iran. Explore Press Release.吃瓜直播 Reminds President Trump That Only Congress Can Decide Whether to Use Force Against Iran
WASHINGTON 鈥� The 吃瓜直播 tonight sent a letter to President Trump making clear that only Congress can authorize the use of military force against Iran. The letter comes amidst reports that President Trump is seriously considering Israel鈥檚 request for the U.S. to get directly involved in its current war with Iran, and as President Trump has ramped up threats on social media, including calling for all of Tehran 鈥� or over 10 million people 鈥� to immediately evacuate. While the 吃瓜直播 does not take a position on whether military force should be used against Iran, for decades the organization has been steadfast in insisting, from Vietnam through the war in Afghanistan, both wars in Iraq, the military action against Libya, and the ongoing use of force in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia, that decisions on whether to use military force require Congress's specific, advance authorization. As the letter explains, 鈥淐ongress, as representatives of the American citizenry, has exclusive authority under the Constitution to decide whether the President may use military force. Particularly in the wake of recent threats of U.S. military action against Iran, we urge you to make clear that you will refrain from use of force outside the scope of the Constitution and the law.鈥� Members of both the Senate and House of Representatives have also introduced resolutions under the War Powers Act reaffirming that the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to declare war, and that hostilities with Iran must be expressly authorized through a formal declaration of war or a specific authorization for the use of military force. 鈥淭he Constitution couldn鈥檛 be clearer, Congress alone has the power to decide whether to use force against Iran, and our leaders need to take that grave responsibility seriously,鈥� said Christopher Anders, director of the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 Democracy and Technology Division. 鈥淚f President Trump wants to send American armed forces into conflict, he has to make his case to the American people 鈥� and to the people鈥檚 representatives in Congress. That鈥檚 what makes us a democracy.鈥� -
Court CaseJan 2025
National Security
Doj Opinions On Domestic Military Deployment Foia. Explore Case.DOJ Opinions on Domestic Military Deployment FOIA
For decades, the Department of Justice has been responsible for advising the President on the use of the military within the United States. By filing a request under the Freedom of Information Act, the 吃瓜直播 obtained over a dozen DOJ opinions on the domestic use of the military, none which had previously been released to the public.