> despite no company materially changing their terms in that time
Yes, because, again, the test criteria themselves changed.
I'd suggest your focus on a two-data-point trend and google (at the exclusion of every other company on this list) may just be revealing your own bias rather than the EFF's.
> it's because the 2014 report is bogus (two of the categories are "published a report")
again, I'd suggest actually reading the report. Several of the categories this year also only require a single line in a privacy policy. That's all this report has ever been -- some disclosures, but in many cases, just flat out statements that something will be done with no actual verification that it will be (since in many cases that's not conclusively possible).
Thanks in advance for being more civil in the future. It's important, and we appreciate it.
> Can you clarify why my comment was rebuked, but the parent was not, please?
I simply didn't see that bit. You're right that it broke the guidelines as well. Had I seen it I would have said so.
Still, accusing a fellow user of shilling is worse than accusing one of not having read an article. The shilling thing is its own circle of forum hell. I've written about it, if anyone wants to understand why we single this out: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateR....
Yes, because, again, the test criteria themselves changed.
I'd suggest your focus on a two-data-point trend and google (at the exclusion of every other company on this list) may just be revealing your own bias rather than the EFF's.
> it's because the 2014 report is bogus (two of the categories are "published a report")
again, I'd suggest actually reading the report. Several of the categories this year also only require a single line in a privacy policy. That's all this report has ever been -- some disclosures, but in many cases, just flat out statements that something will be done with no actual verification that it will be (since in many cases that's not conclusively possible).