Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Outcry Over Google's Purchase of Doubleclick

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the fear-of-change dept.

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."

25 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No love for Google now? Is the honeymoon over?

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The honeymoon is over, and Google cheated on us. The only question now is who do we move on to, or do we just have a one night stand with Yahoo! to get over the pain.

    2. Re:What? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would go with MSN, but I'd be thinking of Altavista.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:What? by HermMunster · · Score: 4, Informative

      And where's the outcry for Microsoft holding a lock on 90% of the world's computers via their registration, activation, and spy utulity (Windows Genuine Notification)? Why would these entities complain about someone that is able to bring advertisements to the world--especially about privacy issues when Microsoft violates your privacy every day and they are going unchecked? Listen, you have a company with unprecedented access to the world's computers, information about the users, information about governments, access through whatever means they choose to install, and no piddly group such as these are complaining that Microsoft is unchecked.

      When they installed WGN onto your computer and they then started reporting back to their website about your legitimacy they were spying on you. It is akin to having Walmart employees come into your home and search it to determine if those things you have in your home are paid for given the fact that you visit their stores as a customer. This is essentially what Microsoft is doing and they are doing it repeatedly, on a regular basis. Microsoft should get away from it because they installed the equivalent of a hidden camera on your computer? You wouldn't let the government invade your home and you certainly wouldn't allow Walmart to enter it, and you damn certainly should not be allowing Microsoft to do what they are with their WGN program or any other.

      This complaint is utter nonsense and loonacy at best. There are greater issues out there for these agencies to complain about. Let's get them complaining to the FTC about Microsoft's WGN utility and the various other things Microsoft is and will do to invade your privacy.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    4. Re:What? by Ai+Olor-Wile · · Score: 5, Informative

      What this article so nobly doesn't mention is that it's Microsoft who's stirring up all of these lobbyist groups. Snatching a link off of Google (ahem), we find:

      DoubleClick: Microsoft Loses, Then Whines - http://www.247wallst.com/2007/04/doubleclick_mic.h tml

      Google buys DoubleClick, Microsoft protests - http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/12270

      Google rivals urge scrutiny of DoubleClick deal - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18132983/

      So, um, don't panic. The community hasn't decided Google is the antichrist; this is all astroturfing, and Yahoo and Microsoft were trying to buy DoubleClick too. ;)

    5. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:What? by e4g4 · · Score: 4, Funny

      MSN is attractive enough, but I'm kinda worried about disease :-P

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    7. Re:What? by svtdragon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nevermind a one-night stand; I'm looking for an all-out orgy. Dogpile, here I come.

  2. I haven't been around in a while by Neil+Blender · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is Google good or bad at Slashdot these days?

    1. Re:I haven't been around in a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes.

    2. Re:I haven't been around in a while by Lux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:I haven't been around in a while by porkThreeWays · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When your other choices are Viacom, Clear Channel, and Microsoft, I think Google is still one of the good guys.

      --
      If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
    4. Re:I haven't been around in a while by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    5. Re:I haven't been around in a while by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
  3. One company with the most! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  4. Uhh, duh?! by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. I for one... A call to the Google Co. by Bananatree3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Big Google is BAD by MBCook · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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.

    Moreover, Google will operate with virtually no legal obligation to ensure the privacy, security, and accuracy of the personal data that it collects.

    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.
  7. No limits, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  8. motto by Propaganda13 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Same old motto, you just read it wrong before.

    Google - Don o' evil

    1. Re:motto by GIL_Dude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  9. Who cares? by pestilence669 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... 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.

  10. It's all relative... I guess by Itninja · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  11. Re:They're legally mandated to make $ top priority by maxume · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, they are obligated to act in the interests of the shareholders. Larry, Sergey, and Eric own a controlling interest, giving them broad leeway in deciding what the interests of the shareholders are( http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6071494.html ). Given that the share structure was public knowledge at the time of the ipo, no one can claim that they bought shares that are now not being properly represented or whatever.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  12. TrackMeNot by drgonzo59 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In addition to adblock, try installing the TrackMeNot extension. It takes a different approach to this whole spying situation, it floods Google with bogus searches periodicly. If you just block Google from getting the info, they won't mind, but if you everyone will send bogus queries it will actually skew their results. Here are a couple of queries TMN sent while I typed this:

    "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...