Now that Google is enforcing an invasive privacy policy

[bookwriter]

and insisting ad nauseam on everyone pretending that they agree to it; If Spybot is really the world's ultimate anti-spyware program:

Why doesn't Spybot invoke a plug-in which is activated on (say) a period of 2 hours non-use of the computer which sends masses of spurious information, data and requests to Google's various constituent parts?

I am not advocating a denial of service attack to combat the new privacy policies, just misinformation which would be in comparatively small quantities, given the numbers of people who would actually want it OR use it at any given time.

 

[TechDud]

Could you elaborate upon the policy or policies that you believe to be invasive. Some direct evidence could strengthen your assertions.

 

[bookwriter]

Could you elaborate upon the policy or policies that you believe to be invasive. Some direct evidence could strengthen your assertions.

For better or worse, Google has managed to worm itself into the lives of millions of users out there by offering quite sparkling services which are a bit difficult to resist. I saw this coming a long time ago and in fact thought that once they had made everyone dependent on their services, they would start to charge for them.

I actually read the privacy policies and found all sorts of things in it to be scary. To elaborate could involve writing a book but as an attorney, there were even things in it which I didn't understand: For example, all privacy policies are now uniform across the range of services but when I tried to go into Google Maps on my android device, I had to agree to letting them take over my telephone and make calls in the background without my knowing. I cant think of any conceivable rationale for doing this save for insidious ones. If a 5 year old offspring of mine types a wrong address into a Google maps and accidentally enters some CIA safe house, would that automatically make it call someone and put me on a no-fly list?

Or if I Have a relative who is an alcoholic who spends lots of time searching for remedies or on relevant forums, does uniform enforcement mean that when Google starts an insurance company and makes terms amazingly attractive and offers all customers insurance, I will necessarily be rejected for grounds no one recognises? Which will then be shared between insurance companies?

I just dont think targeted advertising is the end game here.