Privacy in the limelight: Is Google's privacy policy too inconspicous?

Google has been attacked by privacy advocates for not making its privacy policy conspicuous to its users. The issue arose when New York Times Reported Saul Hansell queried Google's compliance with California's Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 on his blog. He noted that Google's major competitors did provide links to their privacy policies on their home pages.

Privacy was not as much of a concern before the technological age: which could be partially because anyone can access information at the click of a button and because most people have a mistrust of technology. This could be reflected by the Common law position in Australia (see Victoria Park Racing v Taylor, and ABC v Lenah Game Meats) although there was some recognition that privacy issues may be relevant. The National Privacy Principles (for the private sector) and Information Privacy Principles (public sector) and Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), change this position. In the National Privacy Principles, there is a requirement that organisations are open about the way in which they use information, which appears to be mirrored in the California Law. However, with the introduction of social networking sites, it seems apparent that in some ways, internet users are becoming less concerned with privacy. Facebook, for examples, used to allow users to post their mobile number, street address, personal photo collections etc, and have been accused of selling user information for advertising (which is probably where users should have reason for concern as to what is happening with their personal information).

Having read this article, I was of the opinion that Google either had no reference to their privacy policy or it was in tiny lettering. I found I had no problems finding their privacy policy, and was a bit shocked that this is even an issue. Does it need to be in size 72 font, with flashing lights around it? Just like the humble EULA, I am fairly sure that the average Google user probably doesn't care what their privacy policy is (I know before reading this article it had never occured to me to have a look). Is this just another way to bash Google and allow privacy another 15 minutes of fame?