---
title: "Gemini Notebook (formerly NotebookLM) | Ethical Stack"
url: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/notebooklm/
catalog_version: f6baff2119d0e9158520da7fbe4232011dac79f25bd08757436d7a1dbd593db2
---

# Gemini Notebook (formerly NotebookLM)

Source-grounded notebook and research assistant, now presented by Google as Gemini Notebook; NotebookLM notebooks remain accessible.

Canonical profile: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/notebooklm/

Scope: Individual Google account product; qualifying Workspace and school accounts have separate terms.

Published overall: 3.4; 5/6 dimensions rated.

Round the equal-weight mean of available numerical ratings to one decimal; require at least four of six for an overall score. BDS status stays outside the mean; for eligible profiles, a boycott target caps the final score at 2/10 and a pressure target subtracts one point (minimum 1). Not listed and not checked do not adjust the score.

Pressure target: −1 overall point.

## Energy practices

Finding: 2/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/notebooklm/#energy

For the NotebookLM for individual Google accounts; Workspace and school account terms can differ boundary, public documentation establishes the service or route but not its request-level physical footprint. The reviewed NotebookLM pages establish a source-grounded notebook product boundary but do not document user-facing model/token budgets or measured resource savings. Electricity sourcing is not mapped to this route.

Reason: 1 + 1 reporting + 0 electricity + 0 controls = 2/10. This grades documented practices and transparency.

Argument: This practices/transparency assessment covers the NotebookLM for individual Google accounts; Workspace and school account terms can differ boundary. The sources establish how the service or endpoint is exposed and do not establish a documented resource-saving control; they do not give a measured per-request energy, emissions or water value. The disclosure point reflects the stated operating boundary, not a product footprint, and company-wide electricity reporting is not attributed to this route.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (dimension): Individual Google account product; qualifying Workspace and school accounts have separate terms.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: The reviewed sources do not establish request-level electricity, emissions or water; the actual serving facility and its power mix are also not mapped to NotebookLM for individual Google accounts; Workspace and school account terms can differ.

```json
{
  "method": "practices-transparency-v1",
  "scope": "Individual Google account product; qualifying Workspace and school accounts have separate terms.",
  "components": {
    "disclosure": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "The reviewed documentation defines the NotebookLM for individual Google accounts; Workspace and school account terms can differ boundary. It gives an operating-scope description, not a dated quantitative energy, carbon or water report for this route.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://support.google.com/gemininotebook/answer/17004255?hl=en",
        "https://notebook.google/"
      ]
    },
    "electricity": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "No reviewed source maps NotebookLM for individual Google accounts; Workspace and school account terms can differ to a disclosed electricity mix or time-and-location-matched clean-power supply. The route's actual electricity use and emissions therefore remain unestablished.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://support.google.com/gemininotebook/answer/17004255?hl=en",
        "https://notebook.google/"
      ]
    },
    "demand": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "The reviewed NotebookLM pages establish a source-grounded notebook product boundary but do not document user-facing model/token budgets or measured resource savings.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://support.google.com/gemininotebook/answer/17004255?hl=en",
        "https://notebook.google/"
      ]
    }
  },
  "actualImpactMeasured": false
}
```

- [Gemini Notebook privacy and terms](https://support.google.com/gemininotebook/answer/17004255?hl=en) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [Gemini Notebook / NotebookLM official product site](https://notebook.google/) (primary; checked not recorded)

## Training data

Finding: Depends on the model

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/notebooklm/#training-rights

Gemini Notebook’s internal model may change and its product page does not provide a complete corpus-rights manifest for the served model. Uploaded notebook content and model corpus are separate.

Reason: Gemini Notebook’s internal model may change and its product page does not provide a complete corpus-rights manifest for the served model. Uploaded notebook content and model corpus are separate.

Argument: User prompts, model-improvement settings, and the original training corpus are different evidence questions. The reviewed product documentation does not identify a fixed model version and complete corpus-rights record for Individual Google account product; qualifying Workspace and school accounts have separate terms., so this assessment remains unscored.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Individual Google account product; qualifying Workspace and school accounts have separate terms.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: Exact model selection, release version, source inventory, permissions, post-training data, and creator-remedy scope remain unresolved.

```json
{
  "method": "training-rights-evidence-v1",
  "scope": "The stated training release or selected model",
  "components": null,
  "routeDependency": "Gemini Notebook’s internal model may change and its product page does not provide a complete corpus-rights manifest for the served model. Uploaded notebook content and model corpus are separate.",
  "modelReference": null
}
```

- [Gemini Notebook privacy and terms](https://support.google.com/gemininotebook/answer/17004255?hl=en) (primary; checked not recorded)

## Your data & privacy

Finding: 8/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/notebooklm/#privacy

Google says individual Gemini Notebook content is not used to directly train foundational AI models unless the user submits feedback; work and school accounts use their respective Google Workspace terms.

Reason: No numerical score assigned because the reviewed evidence does not establish the route-specific controls needed for one.

Argument: The product-specific Google help page separates individual use from qualifying work and school accounts and states that notebook files, generated outputs and chat history are not used to directly train foundational models unless feedback is provided. The policy does not turn uploaded source documents into private local files.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Individual Google account product; qualifying Workspace and school accounts have separate terms.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: Account eligibility, feedback submission, sharing settings, retention and associated Google services need account-specific review.

- [Gemini Notebook privacy and terms](https://support.google.com/gemininotebook/answer/17004255?hl=en) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [Gemini Notebook / NotebookLM official product site](https://notebook.google/) (primary; checked not recorded)

## Openness

Finding: 2/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/notebooklm/#openness

Gemini Notebook is a hosted Google service; the notebook product and serving stack are not described as self-hostable.

Reason: The score reflects service-level inspectability and control, not usefulness or model quality.

Argument: Google documents access through its hosted web/mobile service and account terms, but the reviewed product sources do not offer downloadable model weights or a self-hostable notebook runtime. Uploaded source files improve context, not product openness.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Individual Google account product; qualifying Workspace and school accounts have separate terms.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: Google may change the underlying model and product scope; inspect current terms and workspace settings.

- [Gemini Notebook privacy and terms](https://support.google.com/gemininotebook/answer/17004255?hl=en) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [Gemini Notebook / NotebookLM official product site](https://notebook.google/) (primary; checked not recorded)

## Worker protections

Finding: 7/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/notebooklm/#labour

Google has a supplier-responsibility system with worker surveys, third-party audits and grievance access, alongside current worker reports describing pay, pace and support concerns among AI raters.

Reason: 1 + 2 pay & conditions + 2 worker voice & remedy + 2 evidence & follow-through = 7/10. This grades documented worker safeguards, not a measured rate of mistreatment.

Argument: Google says its Supplier Code applies to supplier and staffing-partner work, extended workers can report concerns anonymously through Google’s helpline, and its 2026 FY2025 report describes supplier audits and worker surveys with follow-up. Separately, Alphabet Workers Union-CWA’s 2025 report and raters’ pay-parity letter describe low pay, benefits gaps, insecure contracts and inadequate task-time; The Guardian documented raters’ accounts of rapid task timing, distressing moderation work and limited mental-health support, while Google says suppliers employ these workers and set their employment terms. The company system merits credit, but findings from hardware/supplier programs do not prove every AI rater is covered or remedied. This entry carries the same developer/operator finding to Gemini Notebook (formerly NotebookLM); it does not establish that this product was deployed under every cited relationship.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (dimension): Google LLC: the documented developer/operator record, not proof of deployment of Gemini Notebook (formerly NotebookLM).

Research reviewed: 2026-10-24; evidence date: 2026-10-23

Unknowns: The FY2025 supplier program is risk-prioritized and does not disclose whether its survey/audit cohort included GlobalLogic AI raters; Google’s own policy places wage/benefit setting with suppliers. Worker reports are specific but are not an adjudicated finding about every supplier or rater.

```json
{
  "method": "worker-safeguards-evidence-v1",
  "entity": "google",
  "company": "Google",
  "scope": "Google's workforce and disclosed contractors. Coverage of individual product teams may be incomplete.",
  "components": {
    "conditions": {
      "score": 2,
      "reason": "Supplier standards and vetting apply to extended workforce and current AI-rater testimony documents concrete working conditions, but rates, coverage and implementation vary by supplier and some worker evidence is self-reported.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://sustainability.google/files/google-2026-supplier-responsibility-report.pdf",
        "https://about.google/company-info/extended-workforce/",
        "https://about.google/company-info/supplier-code-of-conduct/",
        "https://www.alphabetworkersunion.org/campaigns/globallogic-pay-parity",
        "https://cwa-union.org/ghost-workers-ai-machine",
        "https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/11/google-gemini-ai-training-humans"
      ]
    },
    "voice": {
      "score": 2,
      "reason": "Extended workers have access to Google’s anonymous helpline and supplier feedback channels; union organizing and direct worker reports document voice, though they also describe limited influence over conditions.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://about.google/company-info/extended-workforce/",
        "https://sustainability.google/files/google-2026-supplier-responsibility-report.pdf",
        "https://www.alphabetworkersunion.org/campaigns/globallogic-pay-parity",
        "https://cwa-union.org/ghost-workers-ai-machine"
      ]
    },
    "assurance": {
      "score": 2,
      "reason": "Google reports third-party supplier audits, worker surveys, follow-ups and program improvements; these are company-reported and the published figures do not establish coverage of AI annotation contractors specifically.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://sustainability.google/files/google-2026-supplier-responsibility-report.pdf",
        "https://about.google/company-info/extended-workforce/"
      ]
    }
  },
  "disclosureLimited": false,
  "meaning": "This grades documented worker safeguards, not a measured rate of mistreatment."
}
```

- [2026 Supplier Responsibility Report (FY2025)](https://sustainability.google/files/google-2026-supplier-responsibility-report.pdf) (primary; checked 2026-10-24)

- [About Google’s extended workforce](https://about.google/company-info/extended-workforce/) (primary; checked 2026-10-24)

- [Google Supplier Code of Conduct](https://about.google/company-info/supplier-code-of-conduct/) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [GlobalLogic Pay Parity Letter](https://www.alphabetworkersunion.org/campaigns/globallogic-pay-parity) (independent; checked 2026-10-24)

- [Ghost Workers in the AI Machine: U.S. Data Workers Speak Out About Big Tech’s Exploitation](https://cwa-union.org/ghost-workers-ai-machine) (independent; checked 2026-10-24)

- [How thousands of overworked, underpaid humans train Google’s AI to seem smart](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/11/google-gemini-ai-training-humans) (independent; checked 2026-10-24)

## Military ties

Finding: 3/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/notebooklm/#military-contracts

Google has a current DoD AI/cloud contract and has demonstrated military training/exercise support, but the reviewed evidence does not establish combat targeting or strike-intelligence deployment.

Reason: 1 + 0 use restrictions + 1 enforcement & oversight + 2 relationship disclosure = 4, capped at 3/10. Known defense ties lower this rating; safeguards can improve it within the relationship’s cap.

Argument: Google Public Sector describes a $200 million ceiling DoD CDAO contract and access to AI/cloud capabilities, including classified environments. Its Mobility Guardian 2025 account describes an Air Force exercise/edge workflow processing air-defense data and generating insights for counter-UAS triggers; this is exercise and support evidence, not proof that Google AI selected targets or supplied combat intelligence in an actual operation. Google’s current AI Principles include human oversight and safety commitments but no categorical military-use prohibition. The broad DoD contract leaves substantial enablement potential, so classify as broad-defense and apply the cap; do not call the exercise direct combat use. This entry carries the same developer/operator finding to Gemini Notebook (formerly NotebookLM); it does not establish that this product was deployed under every cited relationship.

Type: argument; confidence: high

Scope (dimension): Google LLC: the documented developer/operator record, not proof of deployment of Gemini Notebook (formerly NotebookLM).

Research reviewed: 2026-10-24; evidence date: 2026-10-23

Unknowns: Public sources do not disclose all task orders, operational use outcomes, customer-enforceable use restrictions, or independent oversight. The specific models and releases used in every defense workflow are not established.

```json
{
  "method": "military-ties-priority-v2",
  "entity": "google",
  "company": "Google",
  "scope": "Google's relationships and safeguards. A company relationship does not identify every product or release used.",
  "components": {
    "restrictions": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "The current AI Principles reviewed do not establish a binding weapons or harmful-surveillance prohibition for defense contracts; the older 2018 weaponization commitment is not current evidence.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://ai.google/principles/",
        "https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/products/ai-principles/"
      ]
    },
    "oversight": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "Google’s public AI Principles describe human oversight and safety practices but do not disclose military-specific independent review, enforcement, or remedies.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://ai.google/principles/",
        "https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/products/ai-principles/"
      ]
    },
    "transparency": {
      "score": 2,
      "reason": "Google names the CDAO contract, its ceiling and the Mobility Guardian exercise workflow; the named public materials disclose no actual combat mission or current contract-level safeguards.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/public-sector/google-public-sector-awarded-200-million-contract-to-accelerate-ai-and-cloud-capabilities-across-department-of-defenses-chief-digital-and-artificial-intelligence-office-cdao",
        "https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/public-sector/google-distributed-cloud-at-the-edge-powers-us-air-force-mobility-guardian-2025"
      ]
    }
  },
  "relationship": "broad-defense",
  "relationshipReason": "Google documents a broad DoD AI/cloud contract and military exercise support, but no confirmed operational use for target selection, strikes, or combat intelligence. Broad-defense cap applies.",
  "score": 3,
  "baseScore": 1,
  "safeguardPoints": 3,
  "safeguardAdjustment": 3,
  "rawScore": 4,
  "cap": 3,
  "disclosureLimited": true,
  "meaning": "Known military relationships take priority over missing safeguards. The rating does not establish the probability of an undisclosed contract."
}
```

- [Google Public Sector awarded $200 million contract to accelerate AI and cloud capabilities across DoD CDAO](https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/public-sector/google-public-sector-awarded-200-million-contract-to-accelerate-ai-and-cloud-capabilities-across-department-of-defenses-chief-digital-and-artificial-intelligence-office-cdao) (primary; checked 2026-10-24)

- [Google Distributed Cloud at the edge powers U.S. Air Force Mobility Guardian 2025](https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/public-sector/google-distributed-cloud-at-the-edge-powers-us-air-force-mobility-guardian-2025) (primary; checked 2026-10-24)

- [AI Principles](https://ai.google/principles/) (primary; checked 2026-10-24)

- [AI at Google: our principles (updated February 2025)](https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/products/ai-principles/) (primary; checked 2026-10-24)

## BDS targets

Finding: Pressure target

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/notebooklm/#israel-palestine

Pressure target in the checked BNC campaign list.

Reason: The BNC campaign guide names Google / Alphabet, the company behind Gemini, as a pressure target.

Argument: The BNC campaign guide names Google / Alphabet, the company behind Gemini, as a pressure target. This entry carries the same developer/operator finding to Gemini Notebook (formerly NotebookLM); it does not establish that this product was deployed under every cited relationship.

Type: conditional; confidence: medium

Scope (dimension): Google LLC: the documented developer/operator record, not proof of deployment of Gemini Notebook (formerly NotebookLM).

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: The BNC campaign guide names Google / Alphabet, the company behind Gemini, as a pressure target.

- [BNC consumer boycott and pressure guide](https://bdsmovement.net/Guide-to-BDS-Boycott) (primary; checked 2026-10-24)

- [BNC No Tech campaign](https://bdsmovement.net/no-tech-oppression-apartheid-or-genocide) (primary; checked 2026-10-24)

## Reading the evidence

- Assessments are provisional editorial judgments. Cite the profile and the underlying sources, and retain confidence, scope and unknowns.

- Unknown, not-applicable and model-dependent are different states. Missing evidence does not establish good or bad conduct.

- Company-level evidence does not establish use of a particular product or model. Account plan, model, host and route can change an assessment.

- Energy scores describe documented practices and transparency, not measured request emissions. Zero component points can mean an evidence gap.

- Published overall scores require at least four of six numerical dimensions. Preserve coverage and BDS adjustments; BDS itself is categorical.

- No named BDS target found is limited to the reviewed campaign sources and is not approval. Personalized priorities do not change the published overall score.

- Review and source-check dates describe the research, not this deployment. Fetch current primary sources when the decision requires current verification.

Methodology: https://ethicalstack.ai/methodology/