I don't think there are too many people that don't visit Google for 2 years, so I don't see any real change. The cookie will automatically renew itself every 2 years and it's still "immortal". A real improvement would be to change the unique ID every x months.

I really don't have a problem with sites setting cookies to expire several years into the future. If I don't want them to do it, I always have the option to delete my cookies. I think there are plenty more serious issues we could be worrying about...

This is no sacrifice by Google. If I haven't used Google in 2 years, and then suddenly use it again, that old data would be pretty useless to them, so there's really no need for them to link my new activity to the old.

More discussed here: http://michaelzimmer.org/2007/07/16/googles-cookie-to-have-2-year-expiration-because-it-is-of-little-value-after-that-time/

Cookie Lifetime has no meaning.. what about session time eh ?

We have a POC and defect on certain properties, why is google not taking proactive action on these issues.. ??

What I would really like to see instead of this is a "Global Signout" feature which you could use to invalidate all of your existing cookies across machines. That way if for example you forgot to logout of your Google account at a public computer, want to remove your cookie from your work computer after turning it in, etc, you could still prevent access to your account without having to go back to the same machine to sign out or delete the cookie. I think that'd be a better option for privacy, and it can't be that hard to implement.

mmmm... can I have a list of Gg criticism things? thanks! =))

Seems like white washing for the media.

This announcement is made just for people who fears about Google and their privacy. It's made to reassure people who didn't know hours ago what a cookie was...

> can I have a list of Gg criticism things

Here's a start:

http://www.google-watch.org

> google-watch.org

I wouldn't take any claims by Daniel Brandt too seriously, he has a grudge against Google and will do whatever it takes to create bad PR for Google.

I can't imagine this having any effect on Daniel Brandt's complaints.

However, in my opinion this change is somewhat better than the cookie that 'never' expires.

But the cookie never expires: it's automatically updated every 2 years (don't tell me you won't visit Google for the next 2 years).

If I don't want the Google cookie, then I will delete it. However, if a user [who is unaware of the cookie] were to stop using Google, it is not completely unreasonable that there is a small chance the cookie would expire before the computer was taken out of service. So, better than 2038 (which has no significant probability of the computer outliving the cookie), but certainly not 'fixed'.

Hardly the point.
People use Google under the assumption that their search is anonymous.

Think of the most embarrassing, private subject you've ever googled. Think of the times you've googled your own name. Think of these items appearing in the same log.

Now, I'm guessing there's quite a few people out there crossing their fingers these logs are never accidentally made public.

So you might doubt Mr. Brandt's motives but he does have one point – why should these logs exist in the first place?
They're so ripe for abuse. Not necessarily by Google. Their mere existence is incentive enough for third-parties to try and get their hands on them.

One day someone will get to them. That's what Daniel Brandt means by disregard to privacy.