Should you Fear Google?

Ponty writes "Google-watch.com is presenting a list of nine complaints about (almost) everybody's favorite search engine. Some of the salient fears are "Google has no data retention policies. There is evidence that they are able to easily access all the user information they collect and save." and "Matt Cutts, a key Google engineer, used to work for the National Security Agency." The concerns seem like paranoid hand waving to me, but maybe I'm not paranoid enough."

Comments

Google is becoming the global memory...

[ites]

In which everything that has been recorded will find its way into Google's caches. Today: every web page in existence, every newsgroup article ever posted (but where is that ABEPB cache, I wonder?), tomorrow every click you make, every step you take.

I think paranoia is not an extreme reaction, because although Google has been exemplary in their behavior so far, such a centralization of information will, one day, become a target for malicious groups.

Why they are WRONG

[NETHED]

1. So disallow cookies! It works fine with out them.

2. Google uses that statistical information to improve thier search algorithems.

3. What are they talking about?

4. Would you share the reason why your search engine is 100X better than the next runner up?

5. That is the DUMBEST reason ever

6. The Google toolbar TELLS you it is spyware, multiple times, and gives you the option of NOT participating.

7. The Google cache is just as illegal as the cache you have of the site on your computer. Except that they are using THIER bandwidth to provide a service, for FREE.

8. Google is the best search engine out there, come up with something better and someone will make fun of that.

9. Ok, maybe THIS is the dumbest reason ever. Most paranoid too.

Always check the source

[Erik Fish]

From this article interviewing Daniel Brandt (the man behind Google Watch as well as Namebase):

We have tens of thousands of these pages indexed in Google. If you don't spend time understanding how the search engines work, you can forget about attracting any serious traffic to your site.

Where have we heard this before? Oh yeah, I remember now: From every marketroid who ever got in a tizzy because his web site wasn't appearing at the top of the list the way the highly paid search engine gaming conslutant promised it would.

Re:Should you fear Google?

[devaldez]

I especially like the quote "Google hires spooks." Perhaps it's because I work for a large company, but I know of several special forces folks here whose old work involved infiltration and intelligence gathering...

Should I avoid anything that includes "spooks?" Obviously I should avoid Minnesota, Utah, and several other states because they elect "spooks."
(though some *might* suggest that I avoid those states for other reasons;)

Tinfoil browsers ....

[watchful.babbler]

Just to add a little context: the proprieter of google-watch.org is one Daniel Brandt, who is almost Biblically ticked off that Google didn't rank his site higher. (To be fair, his site is incredibly useful for those who don't have quick access to Lexis/Nexis.)

Now, this doesn't necessarily obviate his concerns, but Brandt is a veteran conspiracy-watcher whose obsessions include mind-control projects and secret cults amongst the elite -- and this tendency to indulge in, as Wm. Gibson would put it, "apophenia" is certainly likely to color his view of Google.

To my eye, his concerns display a kind of parochial paranoia: obviously, we're all aware of the uses and limitations of cookies, none of us want to see the cache (or the Wayback Machine) go away, and his comments about Google's "monopoly" and the "[y]oung, stupid script kiddies" who "think Google is 'way kool'" are just inexplicable.

Telling, I think, is his concern about Google having a former NSA developer on staff -- I've worked with a fairly large number of former spooks from the NSA, CIA and civilian contractors, and to suggest that having the NSA on your resume makes you some kind of Coder in Black is absurd. But, of course, YMMV.

Actually....

[friedmud]

Actually.... I LOVE it when companies collect data on me.

I guess I am just really weird - but I fill out every opinion poll - and answer every question when people call me asking for my opinion.

Why?

Well, mostly because if they are going to get somone's opinion on something IT MIGHT AS WELL BE MINE! And, if I am going to be bombarded with advertising (including spam, and junk mail) IT MIGHT AS WELL BE ABOUT STUFF I LIKE!

To all you paranoid slashdotters out there this might sound weird. But, really, truly, I have NOTHING to hide - so why worry?

Derek

Re:Wager your privacy

[arvindn]

Absolutely. I know it's very unpopular to say anything against google on /., but let's try to consider the matter objectively.

Google is a company. Repeat with me, google is just a company. OK, right now it is a privately held company, but eventually they are going to go public. When that happens, profits take precedence above everything else. Then you can't be so sure they'll stay on the straight and narrow path.

Up until now, google haven't been evil. Why? Mainly because it was started by geeks (Brin and Page were doing their Ph.D at Stan in '98), and the tradition continues (See this excellent article). But think of 10, 15 years into the future. Totally different people will probably be at the top. They'll see thing different from google does now. For all we know, they'll pull people's pages off the index because "the information could be used by terrorists".

The basic problem is that when a single entity has access to such a lot of information, and so many people depend on them, you can never know what's going to happen.

Note: I'm actually a major fan of google. However, it does not mean that I'll continue to be a google fan tomorrow, or that I don't ask "what if" questions.

Hahahahahaha

[ChaosDiscord]

This guy is an whiner with almost no valid complaints.

Points 1, 2, 3, 4 can be summarized "Google collects the same information that every single commercial web site does. Google does market research to find out what people want from it and how to improve their site.

Point 5 (Google hires spooks), can be summarized in two parts: "Google hires people who are good at automating information organization" (It should be no big shock that ex-NSA geeks have lots of skills useful to writing search engines.), and "Google wants to sell Google technology to the government." (Remember when it was discovered that the FBI's case database was so out of date it only allowed a single search term per search? Maybe it's time to replace it with an internal Google server.)

Points 6 and 7 (the toolbar is spyware and the cache is illegal) are potentially valid (even a blind dog occasionally finds a bone), but not as horrible as suggested.

Point 9 is a bit random: Yes, as the largest search engine Google collects alot of information. Of course, this is true of any large search engine. It was true of Altavista when they rules the roost.

But hidden near the bottom, in point 8, ah, we have the meat of his complaints.

8. Google is not your friend: Young, stupid script kiddies and many bloggers still think Google is "way kool," so by now Google enjoys a 75 percent monopoly for all external referrals to most websites. No webmaster can avoid seeking Google's approval these days, assuming he wants to increase traffic to his site. If he tries to take advantage of some of the known weaknesses in Google's semi-secret algorithms, he may find himself penalized by Google, and his traffic disappears. There are no detailed, published standards issued by Google, and there is no appeal process for penalized sites. Google is completely unaccountable. Most of the time they don't even answer email from webmasters.

I'm not a blogger, so apparently I'm a "young, stupid script kiddie" because I think Google is "way kool."

Of course, here we have the meat of the argument: I tried to abuse Google's system to get an un-earned high ranking for my pages. When Google caught me abusing the system, they penalized me.

Google is popular because their search results are uniformly useful. If they let idiots like this one have their way, Google's search result quality would plunge, much like other search engines did during the late 90s.

The secret to getting high ratings? Write high quality, useful web pages. Let other people know about them in acceptable ways (write to related sites suggesting that they might be interested, post pointers on appropriate message boards, usenet groups, and mailing lists). When other people learn about you, if you're really providing good content you'll get links, and with links comes Google's approval. It's no secret. If you start with an area in which there isn't yet a strong primary source, it's easy to dominate the results.

I've got a solid dozen web pages that appear in Google's top five results for common search terms. With one exception, I've never promoted any of them. I just wrote some good content (but not great, it's just a hobby), and waited. I've enjoyed the first result spot for a number of searches for a long time, including driver's license number, nerf wildfire, visual c++ tricks, gen con survival guide, sourcesafe sucks (I'll admit promoting that last link with my Slashdot sig). If I, as a strict ameteur, am able to do this well without gaming the system, what's his problem?

Google isn't his friend because he's a weasel who tried to sell artificially generated Page-Rank. Google is a friend to all legit webmasters and users.

Re:Google should scare you

[johnnymonkey]

Funny you should mention that they are one of the good guys. In the sixties, the NSA developed a program whose objective was to create scenarios of terrorist events around the U.S (that's right, America) which could be traced back to the Communists and eventually directly to Fidel Castro. These events would lead to a declaration of war against Cuba and eventually its liberation.

That is how far the government was willing to go to get Castro.

When I say, terrorist events, I'm not talking about vandalizing a courthouse or cutting the break lines on a government vehicle. I mean driving a bus packed with explosives into a crowded elementary school or setting off explosives in the middle of a crowded public place or blowing up a bridge. Serious stuff. This project was eventually exposed by a congressional investigation and heads did roll.

These are two perfect examples why the NSA retains the authority to keep its secrets; it's none of your business that a spook (or ex-spook) works for Google and I can assume with certainty that you knew nothing of tax dollars being used to plan terrorist activities within the US in the sixties. Most people aren't responsible enough to use information such as this correctly. NSA's business is really none of our business. It's not that someone shouldn't be watching the watchers, because the long arm of congress is doing just that. But the business of NSA, taken out of context, can seem to be very sinister.

I'm with you, the NSA is the the single most important asset of national security but keep these things in mind when calling them 'the good guys'.

what about public photos?

[SuperCal]

I may be to late to get discussion on this but... How is google's cache any diffent from some takeing a photo in a public place. As far as I know it is 100% ok to publish a picture of anyone or any thing taken in a public place, rather the person or thing has given its permision or not. How is a webpage any different? As long as it is publicly accessible (no passwords or verification system) why shouldn't it be ok to cache it?