I don’t think those definitions are at all canonical, but are you actually suggesting that Google may have a “privacy issue” per your definition? Even if you assume they’re a bad actor, it’s hard to imagine a rationale for them to let a third party have a go at the data.

> are you actually suggesting that Google may have a “privacy issue” per your definition?

Until the GDPR started being enforced, I think it was common practice to collect and sell data without the user's full knowledge and consent. It's a huge change in mindset having to know and explain what they're doing.

Even when not signed in, YouTube remembers the sort of video you've watched and suggests similar ones; I didn't explicitly consent to this, and they didn't tell me clearly what data they were collecting. I'm a former Gmail user; I didn't explicitly consent to Google analysing the contents of my email messages; I think a typical person would not expect that.

If something “feels creepy”, it's probably a privacy breach.

Maybe Google think they have the user's permission. It may be an honest misunderstanding. I'm not saying they're malicious; but I think they have very little incentive to really care about privacy, because their users don't demand it. Third parties will pay for user data.

Also, I think you should be able to choose who you trust. You shouldn't be obliged to trust Google (or Microsoft or whoever); I would see that as a monopoly.

Thank you for stating better definitions. From my point of view, Google solves both issues so far. Allowing you to turn off history solves the privacy issues and there isn't any known technical breach so far, which leads me to think they correctly handle the security issue.