In fact, they are legally and extra-legally compelled to do so. Besides their on profit and extra-profit, obviously.
I'm not saying the government wouldn't be able to tap into our communications, and it doesn't have to be dealt with, but that as long as we're the product, and not the customer - no one really cares about our interests.
We like free stuff, but we don't always realize that it makes us the sold product, and not the customer.
And I don't get what difference makes being a free service or not, government will tap exactly the same.
Its also in the interest of any company to protect its suppliers -- which is what consumers of free web-services that provide the views that are sold to advertisers are.
OTOH, this general interest in protecting "suppliers" or "customers" doesn't imply that it is in the interest of the company to protect the interests of any individual or small minority of either its paying customers or suppliers when it has a very, very large number of either, and the cost of protecting the individual or small minority would be high compared to the revenue produced directly from them (in the case of customers) or from resale of what they supply (in the case of suppliers.)
So, the web service operator isn't much motivated to be concerned about you, personally, no matter whether you are one of a very large number of paying customers or one of a very large number of suppliers of views to be sold to advertisers. It's an inherent feature of long-tail services whether they are monetized by directly or via advertising.
And, in either case, there is little in the interest of the company of protecting abstract interests of either suppliers or customers, only those interests which are likely to impact their ability or willingness to continue to purchase/supply the way they have been.
It really boils down to who you choose to trust with your data. As an insider, I'm very happy with the privacy controls within Google. I'd be more worried about a less well-established player, regardless of whether they charge a fee for their product.
But Google has declined and criticised French data protection legislation by claiming the law is not applicable to its online services.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/27/google_refuses_to_co...
This is more like a case where somebody is selling something and they don't have full knowledge of what they're selling. Companies like Google came to us with a deal: give us your email business, and we'll provide it for free -- as long as we can mine the data to serve you ads. That's how we'll get paid.
But that was bullshit -- and I don't think it was the fault of the companies involved. The problem is, once you start instrumenting the internet, every activity you take online is part of some massive surveillance mechanism directed at your personal life. What started as a simple transaction between you and Google, or you and your ISP, now can involve any other organization that can get that information from those companies.
Sure, some companies are vehement about protecting your privacy, but with governments involved, it doesn't matter. They run the show. Also, this is a "weakest link" problem. Even if Google and 90% of all the other companies you deal with have some technical way of keeping others from your data, but as along as the other 10% is compromised, it doesn't matter. Keystroke readers defeat just about anything. Trans-Atlantic wiretaps allow governments of all sizes a fun playground full of data.
So the real deal isn't what these companies offered. It's more like "use the internet, and we'll track you like an animal. We'll know where you go, what opinions you have, what you eat, who your friends are, and lots more. And we'll keep that information forever"
That's not an acceptable deal. We're the seller, the product is our interaction and the history of it, but we have been seriously misinformed by the buyer about the nature of the deal involved. This is a serious problem and needs immediate resolution. Nobody directly lied to us, but we were misinformed and screwed just the same. Nobody in their right mind would have agreed to such a thing.
Companies like google, yahoo, facebook, ... are a different kind of "free" web-service.
Or free 2 play games, free players are "content" in that games.
That's why in the StartHQ SaaS directory (https://starthq.com) we clearly mark which services are free. This is not meant as a positive sign, but as a warning.
Twitter's IPO? Not quite yet...
