Public Evidence Packet
Google - Privacy Policy
Privacy Policy
61a7ae88-69d7-4ef1-a5c8-48c71b078187- Screening date
- 01 Oct 2026, 19:45 UTC
- Jurisdiction
- EU
- Risk screening
- Medium · 6/10
- Score trace
- 0 points; unchanged
This packet records PolicyWatcher evidence and AI-assisted screening for one public change. It is not legal advice, a compliance verdict, a certification, or proof that the external source remains unchanged.
- 01Source evidence
- 02Explainability
- 03Governance Relevance
- 04Report Output
Dataset QA · sanitized public view
Source evidence
- Publication gate
- Published
- Retrieval state
- Recorded retrieval available
- Latest retrieval
- 01 Oct 2026, 19:45 UTC
- Sanitized channel
direct- Data status
- Available
- Public snapshot evidence
- Available
Public snapshot fingerprints
1c28ab187c38f58e8028b79637ebf0943028dc3541b45553f3e059b8b3daf6c2Captured 24 Jul 2026, 20:56 UTC3877df381d43fa097e08017987ead6bcb7d59d218230c95c7c9709041caa2838Captured 01 Oct 2026, 19:45 UTCSource confidence describes recorded retrieval and publication state. It does not rate the provider policy or certify source authenticity.
Source-anchored screening trace
Explainability
The Google Privacy Policy has not changed, maintaining existing data collection practices and user controls without introducing new risks.
- Reason 10 score contribution
No changes detected in the policy content, maintaining current data practices.
- Related KPI
- No related KPI recorded
- Source side
- Not recorded
Source passage not recordedThis historical reason has no recorded source passage.
- Reason 20 score contribution
Existing user controls for privacy management are still available as before.
- Related KPI
- Consent mechanism
- Source side
- Not recorded
Source passage not recordedThis historical reason has no recorded source passage.
- Reason 30 score contribution
Extensive data collection for personalization and AI training remains a core practice.
- Related KPI
- Data collection
- Source side
- Not recorded
Source passage not recordedThis historical reason has no recorded source passage.
Score reasons and deltaScore values are stored AI-assisted screening outputs. Verified anchors confirm only that the quoted passage occurs in the named snapshot; they do not prove the interpretation.
Advisory review map
Governance Relevance
EU AI Act
Official Journal text, 2024
Which recorded policy statements may be relevant to transparency, automated decisions, data use and human oversight review?
- AI training opt-out
- Opt-Out
- Algorithmic transparency
- Mentioned
- Automated decisions
- Partial
- AI bias and fairness
- Absent
ISO/IEC 42001
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 overview
Which recorded policy statements may inform an AI management-system review of transparency, risk oversight and independent assurance?
- Algorithmic transparency
- Mentioned
- AI bias and fairness
- Absent
- Independent audit
- Absent
- Regulatory compliance
- Comprehensive
NIST AI RMF
AI RMF 1.0; NIST revision in progress, checked 2026-07-29
Which recorded policy statements may support Govern, Map, Measure or Manage review questions?
- Algorithmic transparency
- Mentioned
- Automated decisions
- Partial
- AI bias and fairness
- Absent
- Content moderation
- Opaque
OECD AI Principles
OECD AI Principles, updated 2024
Which recorded policy statements may be relevant to transparency, fairness, accountability and user agency review?
- Consent mechanism
- Opt-Out
- Algorithmic transparency
- Mentioned
- AI bias and fairness
- Absent
- Independent audit
- Absent
Mappings identify review relevance between recorded PolicyWatcher KPI fields and framework topics. They are not legal interpretations, conformity assessments, certifications or compliance verdicts.
Exact change-bound files
Report Output
Both files are generated from this exact change ID.
Download exact-change PDF Download exact-change JSONeaa7c506bd2ed0fb7f062ce0d4c30236c4336159a084a47fa4b0d9e9bf3bf958Questions before reuse
- Does the original Privacy Policy source still match the recorded public snapshot version 3?
- Do the cited source passages support each displayed reason, KPI value and regional note?
- Which advisory framework topics require specialist legal, risk or governance review for this use case?
- Has a later public change superseded this packet before it is reused in a decision or publication?