Tensions swelled in the 1980s amid a growing debate over strategy, when the American leadership of the union shifted toward a less aggressive position while the Canadian side wanted to maintain firm pressure on the auto companies.

Correlates with when a lot of Americans bit down hard on the fishhook of Reaganomics.

Exactly. I don’t think I’m alone in feeling that Google’s clever privacy engineering isn’t enough to keep any of us safe.

Google’s expectation that we be okay with these practices feels like corporate gaslighting, to me.

TL;DR - Google makes (arguably insane) claim that it previously acted responsibly with regards to fingerprinting, and says they will begin acting irresponsibility with fingerprinting in February.

Practical take-aways you probably already knew:

• Today’s Google may do or say anything to make an extra nickel.
• Today’s Google, while it employs some excellent privacy minded engineers, has not demonstrated an organizational commitment to user privacy.
• It is probably wise to assume that the next serious data breach at Google will end marriages, get politicians arrested, get famous people canceled, fuel successful scammers, and have every other privacy impact you can imagine. We know the Google data pool is massive, and we have reason to believe it is incredibly personal. I’m aware that Google has anonymozation solutions in play, and I do not believe those solutions will be effective in a breach scenario.
• I believe that the average person will likely be better off ten years from now if they interact less with Google services.

Yeah. They did substantially modify the message to make it much clearer, thankfully.

“it’s not that hard” just announces to the world that you haven’t tried to do anything hard with it.

Yes! I too now intend to stop calling Chevrolet of Watsonville with my Python questions.