Slashdot Mirror
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."
Google is a pretty public thing. Now, consider what sort of capabilities the NSA/echelon really has, considering they've been working on this sort of technology for years.
You mean... somebody at google used to work for the dreaded NSA?!?!!
;)
Oh, the humanity...
That would be like, say, using Slashdot to post stories after stories that are highly critical of Microsoft.
Oh, wait... Never mind...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
...until they kick in your door and drag you off to their headquarters and interrogate you within an inch of your life.
But seriously, if you're one of those people who is always paranoid that someone is watching you, just imagine how boring that poor person's life must be.
At this point I've decided that even if there are people assigned to watch me, I feel more sorry for them than I would for myself.
Well, I wanted to mention in the submission that it seems like the authors are pretty darned dumb. "They are able to easily access all the user information they collect and save"? Duh! They're a search engine. If they didn't easily access all the information that they collect and save, they'd be a pretty bad search engine.
All of their practices that are decried in the webpage are either perfectly normal behavior (the cookies) or just not an issue (NSA, etc.)
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.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
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.
--sig fault--
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.
1. They have no policy on anything.
2. We don't know who they are.
3. They don't provide any contact details.
4. Their home page contains (ominous music) "no data".
5. erm.
6. that's it.
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;)
"... but you can love completely without complete understanding." - Norman Maclean, "A River Runs Through It"
I mean, it archives your website!! (unless you add headers or robots.txt directives telling it otherwise)
It sets a cookie!! (unless you don't accept the cookie)
It records searches and user inquiries!! There's no possible use for this. Except perhaps creating a record of searches which were clearly successful, and those that were not, so as to improve the service.
It records all data infinitely!! Again, there's NO possible legitimate and useful application for this, except the improvement of the service. Google must know this: improvements will not be tolerated!
They hire spooks Everybody knows that once you've worked for the NSA you've undergone mental hypnotraining that turns you into an evil government controlled assassin. seriously!
Google's toolbar is spyware! Assuming of course by spyware you mean 'software that you voluntarily and deliberately use, with the full knowledge that you're giving data back to google'
Google controls the results that google gives! Imagine that, the nerve of a search engine service giving RESULTS based on unspecified criteria. Surely they should open their precise ranking algorithm to the public. After all, nobody would steal it and create a knockoff if they had such knowledge, now would they?
In short folks, google must be stopped! hmmm... now where did my medication go again....
No, you do not have permission to set up a spy cam in my living room. Feel free to set one up in your living room (that is, the property you own... as google owns their servers and associated resources), and I'll probably still come and visit without complaining, as long as you tell me (as google does in their privacy statement). Now, you could argue that if the camera is in your room, you don't have a responsibility to inform me... but that's a moot point now, since google very clearly does.
You need make no effort to maintain your privacy. As long as you do nothing, your privacy is inviolate (at least by google). It is when you take an active action and hand some third party your information on a silver platter (or a tcp packet) that it is, yes, your responsibility to ask that third part what they plan to do with your gift (there's no contract, is there?) to them.
I've had this sig for three days.
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.
"Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I'll spend to find out how to get people more."
Now you too, know to FEAR the Google!
These "complaints" are totally bogus paranoia in my opinion.
Let's take them one-by-one:
1. Google's immortal cookie : they were the first to do this. Doesn't that make them a trend-setter? I don't even see why this is bad. All sites are doing it now, because they realized it makes sense. Users hate to be burdened with preferences and new cookies all the time. As the Ronco TV-oven ad says : "Set it, and forget it".
2. Google records everything they can : So do all companies. Data is their business. They would be crippling themselves *not* to save all the data. It's how they improve their searches, with, for example, geolocation-based delivery. Isn't it great that most of your search results are in your home language?! That's what they can do by gathering info.
3. Google retains all data indefinitely : Good for them! Most companies can't afford to do this, but clearly Google has thin enough data and big enough RAID arrays that they can. I'm sure they'll put in place a "data retention" policy if they ever need to, but it sounds like they are scaling just fine with the price of storage dropping, and the rate they are growing. I mean, seriously, this argument hardly presents a good reason to throw data away. Because "uh, it's bad for big brother and good for us to have data thrown away"? Gimme a break.
4. Google won't say why they need this data : Pleading the 5th doesn't make a man guilty, as much as paranoids would like you to think. You know they use it at least for two things: IP-based geolocation information, and tracking their own usage levels, so they can better scale their server farms, and purchase only the appropriate bandwidth, so they don't waste money. That's called "being a prudent business".
5. Google hires spooks : Of course they want people with security clearance! All companies that are trying to be a player in the government sector need employees with security clearance, because the government is a tough customer. You can't blame Google for wanting government contracts. They represent long-term big-money. That's what every company (especially these days) is striving for. If they hire former "spooks" (the word-choice even betrays these guys as ultra-paranoid), that's a quick way to get on the government's good-side.
6. Google's toolbar is spyware : don't you think they know that if they ever do anything bad, hax0rs will be all up in their face revealing their scandal? Google prides itself on a clean user-experience. If they don't prompt you for updates, it's because they don't want to bother you. I agree, it might be nice to have a checkbox option somewhere for those curious-types to enable a "notification-of-new-version" feature, however.
7. Google's cache copy is illegal : if search-engines were "opt-in" for webmasters, we wouldn't have any search-engines. I mean, seriously, are these people's suggestions for real, or is this a hoax?! Also, I expect (although don't know for sure) that Google is quite good about responding to requests for purging cached content. I'll bet when those webmasters call up Google and say "please clear all records of this page", Google probably responds. If not, they should.
8. Google is not your friend : Look, I'm not "young, stupid script kiddie", that's for sure. But I don't understand why Google has to be "accountable". Or penalized for having become the internet's ubiquitous search-engine. They provide the best results over-all. If people try to abuse the "semi-secret" algorithm, then they *should* get knocked back down in the rankings. This isn't a battle between search-engines and webmasters for Google. It's about providing the best results, so they can continue to drum up business. When are you people going to realize that success doesn't *always* corrupt?
9. Google is a privacy time-bomb : I don't even understand this one. Sounds like an ad for Google to me, rather than a rebuke.
-Will
That's not a problem - just use the Google cache to find it!
This is just a guess, I have nothing to do with Google.
If I recall correctly, Google did advertise for folk with _security clearance_.
One of Google's revenue streams is the sale and support (and operation?) of the Google search technology for private use - such as on a large Intranet.
Somebody who _might_ have a large Intranet, that _might_ wish to use the best search technology around is the US Government.
And if they wanted Google people to manage it, they would need to be security cleared, or at least they would in a similar situation in the UK.
Back to the article, since number 8 is practically word for word pulled from that loser who's suing them for decreasing his page rank, I'm really skeptical about the motives of this site. Google has no obligations to web masters. They're responsible to people who do searches to return useful results. As long as they continue to do that, then they'll be on top.
If you think it's bad to read your old newsgroup post from 10-20 years ago, think about the search terms you've typed in over the same period of time. And that is information you never thought would be made public.
It's very simple to correlate search request to a person. Most people will search for their own email, name, phone number, address, etc. to find out what's available on the net. If there is a persistent cookie, then all your search request can be tied together. And blocking cookies may not help if you have a static dedicated IP. Google saves every little bit of information they can,.. forever...
There is no time limit for them to destroy this data.
There is no way you can write them and ask them to delete your records.
There is no way to ensure your information won't be leaked by an employee or seized by court order.
I suspect the big google/china ban thing a while back is because the chinese government didn't want google have access to so much information about all of their citizens, including government officials - especially since the US appears to be half-way in bed with google now. Basically it amounts to spying. The terms of the deal with china weren't disclosed for allowing google back online there - but I bet it had something to do with this issue.
With features like google-bar with pagerank google has access not to every search you've made, but also every page you visit! Even without google-bar, many browsers have a bug that returns the last page visited as the referal when you hit the home button or favorites link. Since google is highly likely to be used this way rather than typing in google.com - they will also correlate this information.
I've used google since their early beta days - but now I'm beginning to think they are on the path to evil weither they intend it or not. The fact they are a private company makes them even scarier - no public disclosures of how they are using their data. And with something like 80% of all searches going through google, they have collected a lot of data. Be afraid, be very afraid.
-- Virtual Windows Project
I've submitted my webpage 10x to google, yahoo, ... and it's not a common name or like anything else. Yet I do a search, no link on the first 5 pages (I give up after that).
You don't understand Google. It doesn't really care if you submit your site or not. It ranks pages according to who links to you and some other arcane criteria.
If you are one in a millions hits, it is probably because there are a million pages just like yours. I have never submitted anything to any search engines, but the sites I have done are listed high in Google, because they are either related to obscure subjects, or are considered authoritative because they have been linked to many times.
Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
... if one of their key engineers used to work for pets.com
that place was just a disaster.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Glad to see that slashdot readers pratice all the freedom and rights of man that they constantly yell about.
I agree, anyone how has worked for the NSA should be barred for life from working anywhere. And they definetly shouldn't have the right to work in peace without their name splatted on boards like slashdot. (this is sarcasim in case you couldn't tell)
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
Following is the email I just sent to Public Information Research, the guys that do GoogleWatch. I'll post the reply if I get one.
Hi,
I just came across the page and had a few comments to make and questions to ask.
"1. Google's immortal cookie"
Given that all browsers allow you some control over accepting cookies, and the better ones give you more fine-grained control, allowing you to reject cookies from specific domains. I would say this is a moot point.
"2. Google records everything they can:
For all searches they record the cookie ID, your Internet IP address, the time and date, your search terms, and your browser configuration."
Well, the cookie tracking can be resolved as above. It's interesting to note that they don't record my IP address - at work they get my proxy's address, at home they get the addresses of the transparent caches that my ISP uses. I'd say that as transparent caches become more prevalent, that becomes less of an issue. More on this later. Browser configuration? How do they get that (apart from the easily-spoofable UA string)?
I'd also suggest that your ISP does all this as well, especially if you use their proxy, or if they use transparent caches. This is far worse becuase they will be reording *everything* you do on the web. I'd suggest this is a bigger problem right now.
"3. Google retains all data indefinitely"
Can you prove that? If true, it does suck, but they're probably well within their rights to do so. AFAIK, the US doesn't have the more-enlightened privacy laws that the EU and other countries do.
"4. Google won't say why they need this data"
Is that suprising? What do other US companies say when you ask them similar questions?
"5. Google hires spooks"
I'm sure lots of companies hire ex-NSA engineers. Perhaps they hired him because he is a competent engineer? I hope you realise that this point makes you sound like someone with a paranoia disorder of some sort.
"6. Google's toolbar is spyware"
Don't install it then?
"7. Google's cache copy is illegal"
If you don't want something cached, don't publish it on the Internet. Print publishers can't recall magazines and newspapers, why do you expect anything different on the 'Net? If it is illegal, it's probably because the US copyright laws are seriously broken. It *would be good if Google abided by the HTTP cache control headers, rather than resorting to stupid HTML meta hacks.
"8. Google is not your friend:
Young, stupid script kiddies and many bloggers still think Google is "way kool,"
Thanks for the insult. You're an arrogant, paranoid, stupid, wanker. I use Google because it gets me results for random questions. I don't use Google to find a place to buy CDs online. The people out there trying to scam Google probably aren't the kind of people I want to deal with.
"9. Google is a privacy time bomb"
I'd suggest the current US administration is a much bigger, more dangerous, more volatile bomb than Google is or ever will be. If Google is a nasty monkey, the Federal US Government is a 900-pound gorilla.
Mike.
-- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
On the surface that seems reasonable, but stop and think a little more carefully for a minute.
First, I am a fan of google. I like what they do, and I use their site all the time. I hope the keep going.
HOWEVER, that does not mean that we can just write off the power they have. Since this is slashdot, I think I have a good analogy for you.
Microsoft.
Microsoft is not in any legal sense a monopoly (prior to the court ruling, anyway). No one says in law that you have to use any Microsoft product. Heck, my home machine is strictly Linux, and so far that's legal. But remember a certain court fiasco a while back, and the one bone we got tossed.
Microsoft is a monopoly.
Why did they come to that conclusion? No law says we can't use Linux or Mac. Lots of people do. Most people would agree both are better than Windows.
In the computer world, people are the cause of monopolies.
Not to say they are to blaim, although that may be true at some level. What I mean is, people create the conditions of a natural monopoly through lack of willingness/time/whatever to learn new things. There is a high cost in training time to use anything computer related. Most people have paid that price for Microsoft, and didn't enjoy the experience at all. They wouldn't change if you offered them the perfect OS, because they wouldn't want to suffer through retraining. That's why most Linux GUIs target Microsoft. Not because it's good, but because it's what people know.
Google has a massive inertia behind it. It is now, for many people, THE interface to the web. For many people, they are not going to want to put in the effort to find a new/better search engine even if google starts to do little annoying things. They'll live with it, because it is faster than researching to find a better setup. That also presupposes a better setup, which would be tough. Google has put a lot of work into this.
Thus, Google has power. Not by law, but by market reality. Thus far, they have done the right things with that power. For that they should be cheered and supported, and I'll gladly join that crowd. But no one with real power in a market can EVER be totally trusted, no matter how good they have been to their customers in the past. All it takes is a change of management and the whole thing can go down the tubes. Google is a flashy bandwagon, playing a great song. I love going along for the ride. But if they start playing yellow submarine, I'm ready to dive off. And most people aren't. And that's the (potential) problem.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
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.
It is, right?
Right?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
He runs NameBase, a search engine for citations. From the Salon article:
"When you type "NameBase" into Google, Brandt's site comes up first, but Brandt is not satisfied with that. "My problem has been to get Google to go deep enough into my site," he says. In other words, Brandt wants Google to index the 100,000 names he has in his database, so that a Google search for "Donald Rumsfeld" will bring up NameBase's page for the secretary of defense. "
So, in other words, Brandt built a search engine... but really wants to just build a database and use Google's search engine to search it - he realizes that they have a better search engine than his, and wants to use it to search his entire site, and is pissed that they aren't doing his business for him.
Additionally, Brandt has a political agenda that he wants Google to enforce: (also from the article)
"In other words, Brandt recognizes that there has to be some order to Google's results, and that some sites might deserve to come up before others. He just disagrees with the way Google does it. In Brandt's ideal world, if you searched for "United Airlines," you would see untied.com -- a site critical of United -- before you see United's page. And if you searched for Rumsfeld, you'd see NameBase's dossier on him before the Defense Department's site on the "The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld." "
This guy is a kook and a troll.
-T
Microsoft.
I have to disagree with your analogy, because there is nothing google has done and can do (at least that I am aware of) to enforce it's monopoly.
If google suddenly becomes crap (either because of the user experience or their behind the scenes actions), then there is nothing to force you to keep using google. There are however many reasons that force lots of people to keep using Microsoft products against their will.
Do you really think I'm go to put something novel here?