I am totally fine with us disagreeing. "Walled Garden" has been an industry term that has never had good definition. It is open to interpretation.
My reference to "lack of honesty" can be easily explained, and the examples are freely accessable. google has a pretty good history of breaking faith with people.
There were all those cool google-maps cars were driving around. I do think that they were cool, and I have no problem with the pictures. But I do have a problem with the fact that they were running packet-sniffers the entire time, recording information from people's private networks. When caught, the biggest and most preeminent data sorting and collecting company in the world said, "We didn't mean to collect that data, we just wrote the code that collected it, and then stored it and sent it out to a bunch of contractors."
You can look at the fact that when users of the safari browser indicated that they did not want to be tracked by cookies, google used an exploit to bypass their security settings. Yes, apple was being dicks in this, but even though their were honest options available, google chose to violate their users trust rather than just be open about the situation. This time when caught, the biggest and most preeminent data sorting and collecting company in the world said, "We didn't mean to collect that data, we just collected it, and bypassed our user's security to allow us to."
Then, there was the buzz roll-out, where google exposed millions of people's private information without those people's knowledge or consent. They even paid the FCC's multimillion dollar fine (because what is a few mill to google?) but they refused to admit fault, this time saying "We didn't mean to expose that data, and we don't think anyone used it."
Those are just the big ones. Then you can throw in the throw Motorola/Skyhook into the argument (Which may not have been an illegal situation, but was certainly an immorally anti-competitive situation) the abandonment of neutral search (The choice to give less relevant search results in order to increase market share and/or revenue) and things get worse.
They also reserve the right to download "device-specific information (such as your hardware model, operating system version, unique device identifiers, and mobile network information including phone number). Google may associate your device identifiers or phone number with your Google Account."
In other-words, go ahead and turn cookies off. Once they have identified you once, they can track you through your device. You can opt-out of cookies, you cannot opt out of this.
And my personal favorite is "When you use a location-enabled Google service, we may collect and process information about your actual location, like GPS signals sent by a mobile device. We may also use various technologies to determine location, such as sensor data from your device that may, for example, provide information on nearby Wi-Fi access points and cell towers."
Every google service (last I checked) is "location-enabled" so, once again, if you use one of their services, they reserve the right to check your location by using any sensor on your phone. Do I actually believe that they turn on your camera to check if you are in your kitchen or your bedroom? No, probably not. But they reserve the right to, and the fact that they reserve the right to, while telling you that your privacy is important to them bothers me. There is no opt-out, and there is no way to review this data.
So, yeah, when people pretend that google is a paragon of not being evil, I question their definitions.
Documentation of any of the above points can be easily found with a quick search.
Have a great day : )http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/