Jonathan Freedland falls for the Google story that it can "join the dots of its users' electronic lives" (Our digital masters must themselves be watched, 2 March). If it can, it makes a pretty poor job of it. One of the subjects of my own research is "Longueville Clarke", and over many years Google has systematically failed to home in on the name, but churns out myriads of hits for "Clarke" and "Longueville". It offers the total irrelevancy of a chancer. I have on occasion made an online booking for a B&B in Devon. If I trawl for "Longueville Clarke" and "Cumberland" (he was there in 1817) the first thing Google presents is a B&B site in Cumbria. What sort of joining up is that? If Google were to go into the business of spying on its users it would only make a mess of homing in on the connections it has imposed on them, as opposed to those that might be meaningful for the sort of surveillance Freedland is concerned about.
Stephen Massil
London
• Maybe Google's activity extends further than Jonathan Freedland describes. I posted a blog, which mentioned my hearing aids, using Google. Shortly afterwards a comment was left by Hearing Aid Reviews, advertising their products. Pop-up ads are one thing; invading blogs I consider an invasion of privacy.
David Fielker
London
• Given the concern about Google, should we not question what information Steve Hilton may have been able to access via his wife, who holds "a senior post at Google" (Report, 3 March)?
Name and address supplied