I'm not sure about this site...it would be nice if someone like the EFF ran it and got actual lawyers to look at these. In this case:<p>> <i>Google can share your personal information with other parties: Google will share your personal information with other parties. For sensitive information (medical, racial, ethnic, political, religious or sexuality) Google requires “opt-in”. Google can also share or publish aggregated data that does not identify a person</i><p>links to this discussion: <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tosdr/QZgR8faRWDU/discussion" rel="nofollow">https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tosdr/QZgR8faRWDU/discussi...</a><p>which quotes this part of google's privacy policy:<p>> <i>We do not share personal information with companies, organizations and individuals outside of Google unless one of the following circumstances apply:</i><p>> <i>With your consent: We will share personal information with companies, organizations or individuals outside of Google when we have your consent to do so. We require opt-in consent for the sharing of any sensitive personal information.</i><p>and then he proceeds to conclude that because google separates the notion of "personal information" and "sensitive personal information", and the latter is covered by the "opt-in consent" clause above, that must mean that the former (plain "personal information") must be sharable because consent is assumed.<p>Logically that doesn't follow at all, since the base assumption would be that they don't share personal information unless it falls under one of the listed exceptions, and just because one "consent" has "opt-in" in front of it, does not mean that any other "consent" means some kind of assumed consent. If the words "opt-in" had never appeared, there would be no reason to guess otherwise.<p>What's worse, that line appears to be the sole source of information for him (and no one else came in to discuss it), so that becomes the authoritative line, without a caveat about how he arrived at that conclusion (though, luckily, a link to the "discussion" of that line). The site also says Hugo Roy is an "Economic Law student" in Paris, but his reading of those terms doesn't sound legal in the EU even if that was the correct conclusion.<p>One great thing about this project is that it's something no old media company would have ever attempted, through worries about liabilities, or fear of offending corporate partners, or just a perceived lack of interest from their viewers. It will hopefully be a great way for the actual users of the internet to keep companies accountable. On the other hand, if somehow an old media company <i>had</i> written about this, many would have consulted an expert (and possibly google themselves) before making that kind of sweeping conclusion. The EFF would have too. Hopefully participation can increase in this project so it's not just one guy's reading of a bunch of ToSs. I can consult random HN comments for that sort of thing :)