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!
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.
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.
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".Same old motto, you just read it wrong before.
Google - Don o' evil
... 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.
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.
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/
Believe it or not the world still takes more into consideration than just prices. If it didn't we could have been purchasing cheap oil from Iraq for the past decade. Sometimes you gotta look past the prices to what is in the public's best interest. In the USA for example you have laws that limit foreign investment in some sectors.
China probably makes nuclear weapons a lot more cheaply than the United States, but you aren't purchasing them there.
When it comes to a single conglomerate controlling vast amounts of information about a large portion of the world's population, I think it is safe to say prices won't be a factor that will ameliorate concerns.
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
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
With Microsoft, a lot of what they do stinks of control and monopoly-based thinking. Claiming to support browser standards, but breaking them such that it's more work for web-based businesses to support browsers other than the most dominant one, creating their own "PlaysForSure" music DRM standard and then breaking it for their banner music player which is supposed to supplant the iPod, donating huge amounts of money to schools in the form of certificates for Windows-only software. It's a very different culture.
Plus, if I really want to, I can block cookies, I can avoid sites with advertisements, I can not use the Google toolbar. They are not forcing me to give them my data. I don't use Google Checkout, for example. I don't like to have a blank check sitting on anyone's system. However, they've made it worthwhile for me (functionally) to use their toolbar, so I do. They've made it (financially) worthwhile for me to use their Adsense system, so I do. They've made it worthwhile (functionally) for me to use Gmail, so I do. It's easy, reliable and the price is right, and I can take my crap and go any time if I really wish to, so I use it.
The sheer fact that Google is one of the biggest companies doesn't make them the worst. A very small company can be very corrupt. Microsoft, to quote--or at least paraphrase Steve Jobs--may not be evil, but they have no class, and I choose to give them no more of my resources--informational, financial or otherwise--than I absolutely have to. But it's not because their the biggest; it's because they engage in predatory, anti-competitive behavior.
That being said, Google is a company made up of people. And people do bad things; people make mistakes. My initial point was that even if the intention isn't bad, bad things can happen. I'm not sure it's worth a lawsuit, but it is worth questioning--and was, even before the D-C purchase--whether Google is taking all necessary precautions to make sure that data is not being abused. For example, a client of mine recently emailed me his social security number. I didn't ask for it, and I didn't want it. And I deleted the message. However, it was on my Gmail account, and I'm sure they have a backup somewhere, and if some corrupt-but-efficient person were to gain unfettered access to email backups and do a search for patterns matching social security numbers, they could find them, and possibly use and sell them, and that would be a *bad* thing.
So in short, there's no love and devotion and justification going on, and Google is not yet Microsoft. G may be bigger, but M is definitely badder. Your wariness is probably founded; I just don't feel the same way... yet.
Your rhetorical suggestion about some other smaller company with a good idea is probably a good litmus test. If some little company comes along with a search algorithm that works 100 times better than Google's, and Google sues them into oblivion spuriously (i.e. without grounds, but knowing that the little guy doesn't have deep enough pockets), then I'd start to feel the same way about Google. Likewise, if they were to buy the company and bury the technology so that it never saw the light of day, I'd feel negative about Google. But so far, GOOG has been all about incorporating new ideas, using open standards, and supporting multiple platforms. So far, so good. If you want to know how I'll feel about them next week, ask me next week.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Use firefox + ad block plus and filter doubleclick out with *.doubleclick.net/*
Cogito, ergo sum
FOR THE HORDE!!
;)
or something along those lines anyway
This is the sig that says NI (again)
"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...
Well then we should all search for that as often as possible. How many vans does Chan 4 have? If 1 million people generate wierd suspicious queries, do you think they'll have enough vans, prisons, procecutors, CIA flights to Egypt? Because if they do, then we are really in trouble, we might have to re-evaluate the kind of country we are living in...
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