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."
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!
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.
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.
"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.
...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".Excellent question.
I think I'm going to start tagging stories with "googleisgood" or "googleisevil" depending on how I think it reflects on the company. If that catches on, we should be able to gather up-to-the-minute data on whether Google is good or evil.
God bless Web 2.0.
... 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.
I agree. There is this growing trend of people up in arms about how large Google is, and how evil they are.
Google already holds a good deal of private information about me. And their privacy policies are readily available and clearly outlined.
http://www.google.com/privacy.html
What does this purchase change other than a new source of information? They do targeted advertising. Google's income relies on giving away free services in exchange for you giving information to Google. I believe their ads while targeted, often come across as less intrusive and less annoying than anyone else's.
Given their competitors, I think Google is the least evil kid on the block.
While guys like AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo were volunteering private information to China in a massive witch-hunt, Google was the only one that even tried to fight for your right to privacy.
Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo have all in the past put out software that doesn't fully disclose how it spies on you.
Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo have all fought against open standards, open communication and open source software. Google embraces and supports all of these things.
When someone has evidence to demonstrate that Google is in fact evil, and specifically worse than their competitors, I'll be concerned. Everything until then is alarmist propaganda.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Oh no! Now Google will know about your page and image searches for porn AND your clicking on porn links!
I realize some of you are pretty young around here, but there was a time when PC's were new. Everyone wanted one because they unhooked you from CENTRALIZED COMPUTING. Now everyone thinks CENTRALIZED COMPUTING is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Guess what, nothing has changed. The corporations want you to buy into centralized computing because it gives them control over your information and computation.
Looks like history will reinvent itself with everyone wanting to unhook themselves once more. Well, if they are smart.
Your logic that every for-profit company is evil is weak. Absolute statements don't hold up very well.
You assume the only reason they would do anything "good" is for marketing purposes to make the company look better. Do you know that when I bring up things like Google's Summer of Code program to the non-slashdot crowd, not a soul has heard about it?
They don't sit around tooting their own horn.
Has it ever occurred to you that they are a very wealthy company that has the ability to do good things with their wealth and position, and opts to do so based on principle rather than their image?
Why is it impossible to believe that they would support something financially simply because they support the ideal?
You then follow with another absolute statement that advertising companies are all evil. Again, blanket statements aren't helping your cause.
You also have suggested that Google does from time to time violate your privacy. In what way? Do you have details or examples?
They paved the way for giving away tons of free products and services. They've paved the way for respecting privacy and establishing trust with their user base. They've paved the way to catering the geek crowd, and attempting to offer the best services as opposed to the most mass-marketed services.
Most of the anti-Google talk lacks substance and if I had to guess, stems from the hatred of large corporations in general, as opposed to anything that Google has done specifically to deserve it.
Feel free to try again.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Well, to purloin a phrase from the people always harping about the MPAA/RIAA - these web sites should just get a modern business model and it's just too bad that we don't want to view their ads. It's not stealing... Oh, wait - that analogy only goes so far.
But, I guess it comes down to - for most sites anyway - I wouldn't bother going to them at all if I had to view their ads. So, if they can get some people to view the ads and that keeps them in business great. But I'll be damned if I will use the site if it has many on it. Some of these 10 ads and a paragraph of actual text, then click next for 10 more ads and a paragraph sites I have already stopped going to even WITH adblock plus. It just isn't worth it. Same thing with TV. If I can't TiVo it - forget it. It's my time and I get to decide what I watch with it (and guess what - ads aren't what I picked!).
If that forces some sites I like to go subscription - that would probably be fine with me. I imagine there would be a lot less flames and more reasonable discussion here on good old slashdot if it had to go subscription. Trolls probably don't want to pay, and I'd be willing to bet the crazy "mac switcher" guy with his maximize window crap and the GNAA guy wouldn't want to pay either.
Hyperbole without any actual facts or examples, and again you rely on absolute statements. Corporations can't possibly be good because they lack human traits, but certainly they are all evil.
Do you understand how your attempt at logic contradicts itself?
Humans control corporations, and certainly some are better or worse than others.
The world does not operate in simplistic and absolute black and white as you paint it.
I'm also not interested in the opinion of one who was personally apparently crossed by a corporation, and somehow in your mind that completely defines them. It shows you have a lack of perspective and objectivity.
I gave you the opportunity to offer up facts, and you provided none.
Really, I'm done here.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.