Slashdot Mirror
Outcry Over Google's Purchase of Doubleclick
TheCybernator writes to mention that several activist groups have cried out in protest of the Google buyout of Doubleclick reported in recent news. "'Google's proposed acquisition of DoubleClick will give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world,' said the complaint lodged with the Federal Trade Commission. 'Moreover, Google will operate with virtually no legal obligation to ensure the privacy, security, and accuracy of the personal data that it collects.' The complaint was filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center along with the Center for Digital Democracy and the US Public Interest Research Group, all of which are involved in online privacy issues."
No love for Google now? Is the honeymoon over?
Is Google good or bad at Slashdot these days?
clear your cookies twice a week and browse the web through Tor.. and use your neighbours wifi connection whenever possible.
Google's proposed acquisition of DoubleClick will give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world
You mean one company will have more information than any other company? Unthinkable!
"The complaint was filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center along with the Center for Digital Democracy and the US Public Interest Research Group, all of which are involved in online privacy issues."
Isn't it nice to know all these organizations are working towards one of your goals, slashdot?
The only people complaining are Microsoft's assmonkeys.
and, as such, is irrelevant bashing.
If you want to make an argument as to why Google shouldn't be able to aquire Double Click, you have to talk about prices.. you'll just be ignored otherwise.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Google's proposed acquisition of DoubleClick will give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world
Wow, and all this time I thought that they already had.
Moreover, Google will operate with virtually no legal obligation to ensure the privacy, security, and accuracy of the personal data that it collects.
How is this different than before just by acquiring Doubleclick? (Hint: It's not.)
Yeah, acquiring Doubleclick was fucking lame and I think it was an expensive gamble but that doesn't make them any more or less likely to horde our private data.
Google has yet to lead us wrong. I say we let the machine march on.
Nothing Google has done has been surprising to date. They try not to be evil, but making money will always be the trump card. There "Don't be evil" motto has never been a higher priority than "Making money," which I am sure the stockholders are very appreciative of.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
...use an ad blocking software
would welcome a Google takeover of Doubleclick if it ment a radical change to its underhanded spyware tactics. If Google can reform this company into something less invasive, I really would welcome that.
I've had this in my hosts file for yonks:
127.0.0.1 anything.doubleclick.net
In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
That's the status quo. Google may be that company, they may not be. But there must be one company which knows more than any other at this moment.
That, too, is status quo. Again, nothing is different.
I realize that big companies are evil, mergers are evil, and having all that data in one company's hands might make it more likely to be abused than in the hands of two competitors... but this seems like hand-wringing over nothing. Google just placed themselves in a position to used as a bad guy in this fight. Of course, if companies can get your data wrong and not be liable, wouldn't you rather have 5 companies have it wrong than 6?
Poor Google made themselves a target in an old fight, but I don't really see this as all that bad. This just seems overblown to me.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
So what do these folk think ad-words and urchin (analytics) let them do?
I'm still more worried about the RIAA than Google. The former seems to have a hand in, or is associated with gun wielding police officers. Just pass some legislation to ensure that Google cannot do this, and that one never _must_ use Google (assuming there are alternatives) and I am fine with this. AdBlock will take care of obtrusive ads.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
"Google will operate with virtually no legal obligation to ensure the privacy, security, and accuracy of the personal data that it collects"
Don't they have to abide by existing privacy laws? If so, then the real problem is: existing privacy laws are inadequate.
It shouldn't matter what company it is.
Seriously, I think they have more access to that information already (than anyone else)... I doubt this will significantly change things... and if it does, so what? I'd choose Google over MS any day to have such information...
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
...will give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world Isn't there always going to be some company with more access than anybody else? Is it this guy's job to complain about whoever has the most information until nobody knows anything? Or will he be satisfied when two companies know precisely the same amount and there is no longer a single company with "the most".So wait, are you telling me one company is going to have access to more information than any other company!?! No!
That was my first thought. I use ad blocking software and other privacy assurance items. I haven't seen a doubleclick ad in a loooong time.
MS is obviously having second thoughts about not making a better offer. I understand that there are people out there that will be susceptible to ads on the Internet. I don't know if you can ever get some people to surf safely. Google has so far demonstrated a huge amount of honor (honour) with regard to privacy of users. I'm absolutely happy that doubleclick didn't sell out to MS.
If your choices are nothing but differing levels of evil, I say Google is acceptable.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
As they say, the only constant in business is change. And when you have a market as cut throat as internet advertising, companies are going to do everything they think of to get an edge. Google is a business, and they aren't the government, so I don't have any problem with them having information on me as long as the advertising doesn't get more invasive, like in Minority Report.
Same old motto, you just read it wrong before.
Google - Don o' evil
do you not understand? the bigger you get the greedier you are? Oh and NEWSFLASH, google servs the government exclusively, not you! retards
... let Google have it. I would much rather have a closely scrutinized, 'Microsoft' of online profiling.
Why? Because the more consolidated the resources are, the easier they are to monitor, and the more careful they have to be because they are a larger target if they do violate our rights, or simply piss off the internet community.
I don't like double click any more than anyone else. Mostly because they are very stealthy (well kinda), compared to Google. I know that Google pays attention to what I search for, I can tell by the ads they provide... it's in my face and I trust them (more or less) because they have lots to lose if they start abusing their users.
I really start to freak out when I visit a not-so-reputable site and get adds for "So-and-so lives in mycity,state about 2 miles away and is looking for a good time..." where did they get my address? I wouldn't put is past doubleclick or any of the smaller tracking systems, but Google would be blasted in the media if they were selling our personal info to Porn/Adult 'dating' sites.
I could be completely wrong... maybe no one cares enough to complain and Google is selling us all up the river... but I doubt it.
I do have to admit though, it's kinda scary knowing that anyone has that kind of power to know so much about a person. Kinda like when I reviewed my FBI security clearance paperwork... it's amazing what they can dig up!
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
... really. It's not like this acquisition comes from anti-competitive practices or anything (search Microsoft's history). Let's complain when they (Google) actually does something wrong instead of being reactionary and speculating about things which have yet to happen.
Historically, Google has been pretty good about privacy issues, despite the NUMEROUS areas of concern like:
- Scanning everyone's gmail
- Google Desktop's indexing of everyone's machine content
- Keeping search data indefinitely
- etc, etc.
Somehow, DOUBLECLICK is the biggest concern? Not a chance. This is media hype perpetuated by the competition crying foul. I really wish people would concern themselves with actual privacy issues. It's just advertising data, people. Fear the Google Desktop, not tracking cookies.
But is it worth suing them or breaking them up or blocking their ability to purchase the double-clicks of the world? I don't know. If you don't like what they're doing, don't use the toolbar, clear your cookies every once in a while, add a plug-in to block ads from certain hosts or IPs, and whatever else you like.
Or if you want to be an activist, start a certification where people can put your badge up on their site indicating that their system is totally Google free. No trackers, no ads, no counters, no nothing. Of course, then you could collect data about everyone who visits those google-free pages and use it for your own benefit, or sell it to Google, or...
The CB App. What's your 20?
Yeah, acquiring Doubleclick was fucking lame and I think it was an expensive gamble but that doesn't make them any more or less likely to horde our private data.
It just gives them more data to horde.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
"will give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world"
Uh, there will always be one company with access to more information than any other company, unless all companies make all of their information available to all (never happen). Exactly what makes it bad that it's Google, and not company X or Y which has access to the most information?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I thought all truly educated users of the internet were in agreement that if you want something private, you don't use the internet... at least, not without some big steps (major encryption with secret keys carried in person in locked briefcases, used only once, and are based on atmospheric noise).
Whether or not Google is "bad" or "good" is almost irrelevant; to some extent, you're not going to be private online. If you want to lead a truly private ... life of some sort ... get offline. People can tap your connection, too, and get your e-mail that way. Privacy is ... pretty limited online. That's why people get Ph.D.'s and huge awards in network cryptography stuff.
So... yeah, Google probably has a lot of information that most other companies don't have, and have an easier way to, mmm, snoop or whatever you might think they are going to do. But hey, it's your choice to be online, to allow cookies, etc.
Can always mask your ip, not allow any javascript or cookies or anything like that... or become a monk and live in a monastery and spend years repenting of ever supporting Google's malicious activities by using gmail.
But if they weren't number one in this, then next guy would be...
They are obviously trying to say something like "they will have too MUCH access" though that would mean defining what "too much" means. They can't do that, so they go with this emotional doublespeak instead.
This sort of formless cry that the universe isn't fair is just downright sad.
I'll bet these groups are now lobbying for some sort of legislation. They can't even phrase the problem clearly and distinctly and prove it IS a problem (not that it is going to be, that it IS), yet they want to pass laws to govern it.
Google in 1998: "Don't be evil"
Google in 2007: "Really now, what is evil? Who are we to say what evil is....?"
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Interesting, how can a couple of dollars and one agreement turn a company that everyone blocked, ignored, or was just being annoyed with into a company that suddenly is a serious threat to our privacy.
Whenever there is a Microsoft story, the logo is of Borg Gates. The logo for Google should be of Big Brother from the 1984 commercial
There "Don't be evil" motto has never been a higher priority than "Making money," which I am sure the stockholders are very appreciative of.
As a commercial corporation they are legally mandated to put making money for their stockholders at the top of their priority list.
It's the job of corporations to make money. It's the job of governments to adjust the rules of the money-making game so that doing good and not causing harm makes MORE money than doing bad and causing harm.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I'm sure the CIA will call the FTC and make this all OK. Worry not. It's double-plus good.
It's well known the CIA is woven deep into Google, and frankly if they weren't we'd have to fire the whole CIA for incompetence.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Where are these organized activist groups whenever Microsoft is involved? Seems like apologists only come out.
"Google's proposed acquisition of DoubleClick will give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world,"
So the situation before was that there were two or more top companies who each had equal access to this information? Otherwise, the argument is silly since there will always be one or more companies that have access to more information about X than any other company in the world!.
Isn't there always going to be some company with more access than anybody else?
Except when two or more are tied for first place. B-)
= = = =
Their spokesperson was innumerate, which makes his lead argument ludicrous to anybody with even a slight understanding of math.
He was also very unclear on his major point:
- Google now has access to info on user searches, along with SOME of the link-follows from their search results (those where they hotwired it to go to their servers and forward to the target along with those that use their cache).
- Doubleclick has access to info on page views where they have ads - info that Google, in the main, doesn't have.
By buying Doubleclick, Google potentially has much MORE information about users' online behavior. It isn't quite as good as having a tap on the users' internet connection. But far less of their browsing will be missed.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
for crying out loud, use noscript (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/722)! why should anyone care if doubleclick owns itself or is owned by google (which has yet to break my trust)? i rather see power in able hands.
classic slashdot prejudices on display: google can do no wrong. kind of like microsoft can do no right. hey guess what slashbots, in the real world, *gasp* microsoft can actually get some things right, and *gasp* google's "do no evil" buzzphrase is exactly that: marketing propaganda. face it: google might have been the cool new upstart 5 years ago in 2002, but now it is just as much an entrenched bloated corporate entity just as much as whatever your favorite corporate bogeyman is. please catch your prejudices up with reality, google is just as much a corporate faceless scourge as all the rest now
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Really, where are the GrammarNazis when you need them.
Who cares who owns it, besides, as a pretty successful AdSense publisher, I am glad the possibility of a bigger footprint of what I can advertise and at what kind of revenues...Since there is currently no automated, contextually sensitive advertising system that even comes close to AdSense.
dB Masters
"Electronic Privacy Information Center"
Your search - "Electronic Privacy Information Center" - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
"Center for Digital Democracy"
Your search - "Center for Digital Democracy" - did not match any documents.
"US Public Interest Research Group"
Your search - "US Public Interest Research Group" - did not match any documents.
Since Google says these so-called 'activist groups' don't exist, this must be a hoax! All hail the all-seeing, all-knowing Google!
So far all they've done is purchase a large ad company. Nothing really new for Google, they're already very heavily into the online ad market.
.... But considering their past history, previously stated goals (do no evil) and past history of pretty much adhering to said goals I for one would be willing to wait and see exactly what they do with this.
.... Microsoft has been leading a bunch of "the competition" and collectively they've been very vocal. Perhaps this is merely sour-grapes that their bid was not sufficient?
....Google's proposed acquisition of DoubleClick will give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world Seriously folks , there's always going to be some company with more access than the others - nothing has changed.
Of course, this does give them greater *potential* to do evil
On the flipside - who's whining about this acquisition?
This most recent outcry is nothing more than media hype seeking and emotion saturated hand-wringing
Move along, move along folks.
Nothing to see here, move along please.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Just saw this in the SMH:
c ks-your-online-habits/2007/04/23/1177180549441.htm l
http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/search-service-tra
"The new feature, called {Google} Web History, allows users to look back in time at the websites they have browsed and search them for specific lines of text." and "Australian Privacy Foundation chair Roger Clarke said of the new feature: "Every URL that you ever go to at any time is being sifted through at Google and thrown into their archives to help them build a profile about you forever.""
This isn't evil in itself, but it's certainly open to abuse. Yahoo said they were complying with the laws of China when they turned those dissidents in. Google have the potential to do that, and now with doubleclick, even more. As Scott McNeally snarled: "You have no privacy. Get over it!"
I would much prefer Google to know about all of my internet activities than Microsoft. I'm glad Microsoft is pissed off that they couldn't afford such a buy out. Hopefully Google is able to turn this into a more positive note, not that it really has to with that kind of cash flow. Either way, Microsoft would buy DoubleClick and use it for evil, while Google I truly think is using it to make their AdSense / AdWords program that much better. Plus, didn't google just announce it will not store your personal data for longer than 12 months? Thats better than anybody else out there I'm sure.
Google... I know you read these, so... I still love you!
Relocating to San Francisco / Palo Alto... Hire me?
Use firefox + ad block plus and filter doubleclick out with *.doubleclick.net/*
Cogito, ergo sum
Yes Google.. that's it! Use your rage, buy DoubleClick... come to the dark side! mwhahahhaha
...if all the voices that have cried out are suddenly silenced.
(If my friend Ben suddenly gets a headache, I'll let you all know.)
i just don't think google is deserving of any special consideration anymore. "do no evil"=complete bullshit
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
My experience with Google has been so surprisingly positive this far, that I almost feel better about these doubleclick data being incorporate into Google, than just left to doubleclick itself.
Excellent e-mail, excellent web-search, excellent additional services. Even with youtube, Google is fighting some good battles. All in all, Google comes out as the good guy, in my view.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
If doubleclick "hit the monkey" ads start being served from google.com addresses in order to get around the fact that people DNS block doubleclick. Then I will just start DNS blocking google.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
"exclusive fire roasting process"
"business relations win"
"crazy meds explains"
"moat encourages young" -- what ?
and so on. It is pretty fun just to watch what it will come up with. I send about 1 per 2 seconds, and then perhaps a 'real' query once per hour. Let Google try to figure out which is which, they are pretty smart so I'll leave it up to them as an exercise...
The complaint was filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center along with the Center for Digital Democracy and the US Public Interest Research Group, all of which are involved in online privacy issues.
Wow, I'm sure that hearing from those groups will rile up Congress. How about a moratorium on stories about this until someone who is not a tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoid or working for Microsoft files a legitimate gripe?
You are not buying nukes from China, but you are buying nearly everything else. And until very recently Halliburton was doing brisk business with Iran through a Cayman-based subsidiary.
There is hardly any distinction between the government and the corporations anymore. And right now "public's best interest" is what the president (such as he is) says it is.
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
How random are the queries TrackMeNot generates? Can you customize the lexicon? Your last example raises a bit of a red flag for me. Random phrases might get you in trouble if they make it look as though you're searching for kiddie porn, for example.
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
As a commercial corporation they are legally mandated to put making money for their stockholders at the top of their priority list.
No it is not. I wish people would stop repeating this.
Fundamentally, it is a company's duty to not commit fraud. That is, lie to the shareholders. If it is in the company's charter to not do evil (not even sure if this is the case w/ google) then shareholders are just as entitled to bring action against the company for breaking the evil clause as they are any profit clauses.
In your scenario non-profit commercial corporations would not exist.
What happens when Google's motto "Do no evil" conflicts with their legal OBLIGATION to their shareholders to do everything in their power to increase shareholder value?
You get this.
These activist groups are funded by microsoft. How is that?
Google already has all my email and records on all of my searches. Having Double-Click wont change much. I'm not worried about Google misusing my information as much as I am worried about the government taking my personal information from Google. I am a little concerned about how much information there is on me in Google should someone hack their systems or if they were internally compromised. But with my other options being Microsoft, Comcast, whoever, I don't really feel like I have much privacy online, except through obscurity. I think the real threat that people are feeling is that those other guys are all fuck-ups that probably can't keep anything straight, while Google is going to be effective at indexing all of this information and retaining it long term. The wild west is over and I'm sad to see it go. But it's gone.
127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.net
And there you go; no need to be worried about who owns or what Double Click wants to do on your computer.
Much easier than hyperventilating in a public forum...
In my opinion google is trying to eliminate all companies that they think will become their competitor in the future. They do this to monopoly the internet.
The web page doesn't seem to suggest that it does. If it doesn't then there's a fairly obvious method of identifying a good proportion of "real" searches.
Seems pretty ridiculous to me. If it was worth the effort you could probably be tracked and what you are doing is only 'effective' to the degree that Google doesn't care.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
But isn't the better solution to not use Google at all, rather than trying to block their legal acquisition of a company? I mean, Google can't gather info on you if you don't use their services; I personally don't. If you really want to be effective, you could e-mail Google's customer service and say "I won't use your services until you stop gathering data from my searches" and proceed to not use their services.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
"Google's proposed acquisition of DoubleClick will give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world"
Now wait a minute. If logic serves me correctly, there is always ONE company that has more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company. What would be odd is if all companies had the same amount of information about Internet activities. If he meant to say that Google will have a virtual monopoly, that would make more sense to me. However, it would be completely untrue. Only a small percentage of all Internet activities go through any one provider.
...a cheap(?) way for Google hire REAL SOFTWARE PROGRAMMERS (in the end)--not posers with slick, misleading(?) resumès.
I heard they waded through 1,000,000 resumès to fill 5,000 jobs there in 2006.
Saying tha competition is fierce to work at Google is a GROSS UNDERSTATEMEMT!
If Google are banned from buying DoubleClick, then it's sure as hell impossible for MS to buy it, even by proxy. And I suspect the only reason for Google to buy DC is so that MS don't buy it and cut Google out of most of the money for search engines, killing them off.
It may be cheaper to "buy" DC and then be told they can't, get the money back (loss of interest earnings) than to pay to keep MS out of the deal.
I don't see how they can make a claim that Google would operate without regard to privacy? They're still held accountable for the actions taken and are required by law to protect the privacy of others. Buy all they want, collect my data, just don't give it out.
[%] Cingular Ringtones
When you hear that there was a war going on about who would own doubleclick, between you and me,
even though it seems a big monopoly, I still prefer google to either yahoo or microsoft.
Had it fallen into enemy hands(ms)then there would have been way to much control for
gates and the boys, but this is only my opinion, I really dont see the problem with google having it
it might make the ads a little less heavy seeing as alot of google ads are text based and not
cold fusion or heavy gifs.
Obviously, the solution is to divide such information equally among all companies, so that no single company could possibly have more information than any other...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I consider myself a rather intelligent person, but I so totally can't understand this antitrust/monopoly cries...
antitrust/monopoly laws are there to protect consumers (who, in case of a monopoly don't have a choice (of product or price) and the (main) reason is that a company can charge whatever they want without any serious repercussion and/or sell a product that lacks quality (again, without a significant repercussion in sales))
In this model, it's companies that want to buy ads that are customers, not the general public. But even taking that into consideration:
1) there are other search engines
2) how much information will be able to gather about particular surfers with the help of doubleclick is an interesting question and whether it's an acceptable thing definitely is a discussion worth having, however, it is not relevant for the monopoly/antitrust discussion
3) A monopoly in and by itself is not illegal, the law just stipulates as a monopolist, you have to tread more carefully with what/how you do things: unlike Microsoft with their propriety formats, refusing to give out proper documentation (see look up vs Microsoft) at a reasonable price, etc..., a possible monopoly of Google would not prevent anybody else from starting their own search engine or selling ads. In fact, I don't see an easy way for Google to misuse a possible monopoly to prevent or hinder competition. (Only if they would for example make YouTube inaccessible for other search engines or things like that)
So, can somebody, without using any FUD, tell me exactly why there are antitrust/monopoly issues with Google buying DoubleClick?
Chance favors the prepared mind...especially when you Question Authority
You're telling me!
However, I have some tips on how to get an interview there:
http://euri.ca/blog/2007/04/16/secret-tips-to-get- the-job-at-google-you-all-want
A12A.713 is the root of ASC('evil')
Google Does Evil. AGAIN. Old news.
Google Does Evil. AGAIN. Old news.