“Google’s alarming admission last week–confirming it collected entire emails and passwords–only heightened our concerns about how and why this data was collected,” Blumenthal said, adding that he’d rather not “rely on Google’s explanations and assurances…to confirm the facts about how this happened and how consumers will be protected going forward.”

A wise move, I think, particularly given the way Google’s narrative for this particular cock-up has evolved over the past few months, from an outright denial in April to a backpedaling, embarrassing admission in May and finally an apology in October.

In April, an outright denial:

Writing in Google’s European Public Policy blog, Peter Fleischer, the company’s global privacy counsel, denies there was a privacy issue with Google’s Wi-Fi data collection practices. “Google does not store or collect payload data,” he says.

Google product manager Raphael Leiteritz reiterates this assertion in the company’s Submission to Data Protection Authorities that same day. “All data payload from data frames are discarded, so Google never collects the content of any communications,” he writes.

In an interview with the New York Times a few days later, Google spokesman Kay Oberbeck dismisses the privacy concerns of German officials, saying: “What we are doing is totally legal and is being done by other companies around the world….We did not mention the WLAN project during our discussions with data protection officials because it is not related to Street View.”

In May, an embarrassing admission…

Writing in Google’s official blog two weeks later, Google SVP Alan Eustace reveals that the company actually had been collecting payload data. “It’s now clear that we have been mistakenly collecting samples of payload data from open (i.e., non-password-protected) Wi-Fi networks,” he explains. “So how did this happen? Quite simply, it was a mistake.” Then there was this from Peter Barron, Google’s director of communications for Northern and Central Europe: “We didn’t want to collect this data in the first place and we would like to destroy it as soon as possible.”

…followed by some aggressive damage control and a downplaying of the issue:

Speaking at Google’s annual Zeitgeist Europe forum, Google CEO Eric Schmidt describes the payload data collected as inconsequential and excuses the company for its misstep, saying, “There was no harm, no foul.”

In June, an unsettling hypothesis:

Apologizing for the company’s mistaken collection of user data, a Google New Zealand spokesperson tells the Otago Daily Times that the information the company’s Street View cars intercepted might not have been as inconsequential as Schmidt claimed. “Our in-car WiFi equipment automatically changes channels five times a second,” she says. “That said, it’s possible that the fragments of data we collected could contain entire emails or other content if a user broadcast personal information over an open network at that moment.”

In October, some hard evidence, another embarrassing admission and a change of tack…

A few months pass, and then a Canadian Privacy Commissioner’s investigation reveals “that Google did capture personal information–and, in some cases, highly sensitive personal information such as complete emails.” Interestingly, in its report on the matter, the Canadian Privacy Commissioner’s office notes that while Google “does not intend to resume collection of Wi-Fi data through its Street View cars…[it does intend to] rely on its users’ handsets to collect the information on the location of Wi-Fi networks that it needs for its location-based services database.”

And then the Schmidtstorm:

Appearing on CNN’s “Parker Spitzer,” Google CEO Schmidt cavalierly suggests that folks worried about Google Street View invading their privacy should “just move.” Ironically, he says this on the very day that Google admits those cars captured more than just fragments of personal payload data and says it is “mortified by what happened.”

Schmidt apologizes for his remark the next day:

“As you can see from the unedited interview, my comments were made during a fairly long back and forth on privacy,” he says. “I clearly misspoke. If you are worried about Street View and want your house removed please contact Google and we will remove it.”

And a day later the FTC announces that it has concluded its inquiry into Google Street View, saying the improvements Google has made to its internal privacy practices have alleviated its concerns for consumer safety.

Meanwhile, Blumenthal’s investigation continues.

UPDATE: Responding to a request for comment, Apple (AAPL) gave its standard non-denial for deals like these: “Apple buys smaller technology companies from time to time and we generally do not comment on our purpose or plans.”

So are a lot of reports about the reports of his death, which pin the blame on Twitter. Or in the case of the New York Daily News, something called a “Twitter blogging service.”

The original rumor that Lightfoot was dead may or may not have originated on Twitter–his road manager seems to think it was via “a Twitter coming out of Ottawa.” But that seems both very specific and hard to prove. If anyone can, please let me know.

But say it is true. Twitter still didn’t force Canwest, the big Canadian media conglomerate, to publish a wire report that said the singer was dead. As best I can tell, it was that story, which was picked up by various Canwest newspaper sites, that convinced people Lightfoot had croaked.

Here’s Canwest’s description of what happened:

After false rumours of Lightfoot’s death initially emerged online, Hawkins [musician Ronnie Hawkins, a friend of Lightfoot] was contacted by a Canwest reporter. In that interview, Hawkins reported that Lightfoot was dead. Based on that information, Canwest News Service sent out an alert and short story on the wire which reported Lightfoot’s death. Within minutes, Canwest was contacted by a representative close to Lightfoot who said that news of his demise was untrue. That prompted another alert on the wire which said the previous story should be disregarded because there were conflicting accounts about Lightfoot’s health.

About 30 minutes later, Canwest spoke to Lightfoot’s tour manager, [Bernie] Fiedler, and immediately moved another story on the wire reporting the singer’s death was a hoax.

In Twitter time, 30 minutes is forever, of course. And it was the first Canwest story and alert, which were indeed distributed via Twitter, that really fueled this thing. But blaming Twitter for quickly spreading a mainstream news organization’s story is a stretch.

Here’s some pithy perspective from Doug Saunders, a Canadian journalist who doesn’t work for Canwest. It comes to us via Twitter, naturally:

If a media snafu causes you to debate the role of Twitter, imagine it’s 90 years ago and instead of Twitter you’re saying “the telephone… Hearing some rumour and printing it as truth is unrelated to tech used to circulate that rumour. Same happened, faster, in 1780s.

If you’re itching to confirm Lightfoot’s health yourself, you can listen to an impromptu interview the singer conducted yesterday with a Toronto radio station. And I hope to see him make a Goldblumesque appearance on “The Colbert Report” very soon.

Until then, here’s the obligatory blast from the past:

The content-discovery service, StumbleUpon, has gotten itself back to start-up status, after being bought by eBay two years ago.

It announced today that it was returning to being an “investor-backed startup” by a roster of well-known Silicon Valley investors, including Ram Shriram of Sherpalo Ventures, Accel Partners and August Capital.

Its founders, Garrett Camp and Geoff Smith are also back, with Camp now in place as CEO.

“We are grateful to eBay for its guidance. However, we realized there were few long-term synergies between the two businesses. It is best for us to part ways and focus on our respective strengths,” said Camp, stating the very obvious.

That’s quite a boomerang since it was acquired by the auction giant in 2007 for $75 million.

Before that event, which was at the height of the Web 2.0 fervor, the Canadian-born social-bookmarking start-up, which launched several years ago, came to the Bay area in 2006 and got some fancy venture investors (Mitch Kapor, Ron Conway, Shriram and others) who ponied up a couple of million dollars. It soon became a traffic-generating hit.

But rumors of the San Francisco-based company being sold by eBay (EBAY) have swirled around it almost since it was bought, although there was no sale.

The same has been true for eBay’s other purchase, of voice-over-IP service Skype. A recent report in the New York Times said its founders were also considering buying Skype back from eBay.

Under eBay, the site has floundered a little bit, but made some changes, such as unveiling a new Web-centric look and feel and a new partnering program last fall that represented a major shift for the online discovery service.

In that change, users no longer had to register for the service or download its toolbar to “stumble” the Web.

Terms of the deal were not released, but we’re digging! Um, stumbling!

More to come, but here’s the full press release from the company, as well as a video I did at the party StumbleUpon threw after getting acquired by eBay, including an interview with then-thrilled Camp:

StumbleUpon Goes Independent; Backed by Founders and New Investors

April 13, 2009 – StumbleUpon, the best way to discover new content on the Internet, today announced that after nearly 2 years as a subsidiary of eBay Inc., it has returned to the ranks of an investor-backed startup. StumbleUpon is now backed by the original company founders, Garrett Camp and Geoff Smith, as well as a number of well-known investors including Ram Shriram of Sherpalo Ventures, Accel Partners, and August Capital. Camp takes on the role of CEO of StumbleUpon.

“We are grateful to eBay for its guidance. However, we realized there were few long-term synergies between the two businesses. It is best for us to part ways and focus on our respective strengths,” said Camp. “This change makes it possible for StumbleUpon to continue to innovate and focus on becoming the Web’s largest recommendation service.”

“StumbleUpon helps users discover the best of the web–it’s a way to find interesting content you wouldn’t think to search for,” said Shriram. “StumbleUpon’s personalized recommendation engine brings serendipity back to websurfing, and lets users sift through socially-endorsed content with a single click.”

StumbleUpon will remain focused on helping people discover interesting content by increasing the accessibility of the StumbleUpon service and the quality of recommendations. In addition, StumbleUpon has plans for several new products and features to be released in the upcoming months.