Slashdot Mirror
Google Attempts to Allay US Privacy Fears
Ian Lamont writes "Google is in the midst of a full-court privacy effort in Washington that involves pushing consumer privacy legislation in U.S. Congress, reaching out to privacy advocates in an effort to allay concerns about its acquisition of DoubleClick, and working with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to 'fine-tune online advertising principles' that the agency proposed last year. Google has been under fire in Washington in recent years — the FTC investigated the Google/DoubleClick deal and the EFF has issued warnings over Google services in the past. Is Google being sincere about these issues, or is this effort mostly paying lip service to its 'do no evil' policy and an attempt to head off future clashes with policy makers?"
Is Google being sincere about these issues, or is this effort mostly paying lip service to its 'do no evil' policy and an attempt to head off future clashes with policy makers?
The latter. This is pure damage-control on Google's part...they can see their "do no evil" veneer is starting to wear a bit thin, and are busily applying a few more layers of polish to keep things looking pretty. If they were actually sincere, they might address some of the root problems, such as the glaring privacy issues inherent in Gmail and Google Desktop.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Google is just as evil as the rest of them. It's stupid everyone thinks they're some holy grail of awesomeness. They're in it to make money. They have your email, your search history, your calendar, your shopping, etc. all of the data which they read so they can provide you with related ads. All that data is stored somewhere, just waiting to be given up to whomever steals or subpoenas it.
It might make sense to push for privacy laws. Especially those that restrict the government.
After all, Google doesn't want competition!
Google is one half of the internet advertising market and DoubleClick is the other half. It's basically an instant monopoly. There are very few other guys out there. I know MS is in the market and I guess Yahoo is too but I can't think of anyone else. Add in that Google owns most peoples data (email, search, and who knows what else) and you have something that could be very very dangerous. Personally I'm not that worried but I'm keeping my eye on them
"While I believe that they are really trying to stick to the 'Do No Evil' ideal..."
And with that statement, Google proves that their massive PR campaign has worked.
Google is evil and does do evil quite regularly. They are, in fact, at least as evil as any other typical publicly traded company.
I'm not sure now if they ever actually cleaved to the "don't be evil" philosophy, or just started it as a PR campaign and went about their business, cheerfully ignoring it internally.
Google is idealistic? Not even remotely--they're aggressive, mercenary, and willing to sell their grandmother's sexual secrets for a profit. In other words they're just another company. The only thing that makes them unique is their amazing ability to keep blinders on most of the otherwise internet-savy public.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
China, France and Germany, on the other hand, have required Google to actively censor their sites. Google's expressed some regret over paying the price for China, but it's not clear cut either way. If you fight the Chinese government on Chinese soil, you lose unless you're very good at hiding yourself. Do you honestly think that Google's going to be able to avoid the Chinese agents that come to shut them down and arrest their employees? Do you think China would be better off if Google had never gone there in the first place? It shows that they're complying with the government ideas of good and evil, not the rights of the individual What have you done to extend more freedom and rights to the Chinese people recently?
I don't know for sure whether Google is paying lip service to privacy, but I do want to point this out: Google may have already bought double-click, but they've yet to solidify practices and procedures around this new asset. Has Microsoft ever worked with the Attorney General to work out anti-competitive issues *prior* to releasing a version of Windows? Did they approach the ISO or anybody else about what would be good to go into an open document standard prior to developing OOXML?
No, but it is their place to decide WHERE they do business. Saudi Arabia may have a law that says a woman must be imprisoned for having pre-marital sex and that companies have to cooperate in any prosecution of such a case (by providing her emails and phone records, etc.). But I'm damn sure never going to follow that law because I'm damn sure never going to do business in Saudi Arabia as long as they have those kind of evil bullshit laws.
Google hides behind that lame "we're just following the law" excuse just because they don't want to give up the money they stand to make from the Chinese market. The only logical response to "we're just following the law" is "If their law requires you to do evil things if you're doing business in their country, then why are you doing business in their country in the first place?"
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Why do people insist upon treating a corporation like it is anything other than a legal fiction?
A corporation is a thing, not a person. It has no more consciousness than a hammer does, and therefore the concept of morality does not apply. A hammer is neither moral not immoral. It is amoral, and a corporation should be handled similarly.
This unconscious anthropomorphizing and the atmosphere of anonymization it creates has tempted more than a few people to try to pull some pretty underhanded stunts, particularly in the last ten years, then turn around and point at the sign out on the front lawn and claim that it was the "corporation" that actually did the foul deed. Then the hue and cry goes out to punish the instrument instead of the instigators. As if the cubicle worker and the office janitor had the faintest idea.
What rubbish.
In a hit-and-run, it isn't the car that is prosecuted. Similarly, the question should not what "Google" is doing, but what the CEO, Dr. Eric Schmidt is doing. Or, at most, what the members of the Board of Directors are doing. People make the decisions; not the hammer.
Now; how about we this try again, and this time plug the names of people in, instead of an anonymous, faceless corporation's?
'Nuff said.
.
Regards;
Google's business plan is to collect information, and apply that information to generate revenue. Applied information is knowledge. Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. There are other agencies that collect information on this scale, think Homeland Security, and though they are 'heavily regulated,' there are still abuses. As much as we would prefer to believe that 'Do No Evil' actually means 'Do Good,' it doesn't. Maximizing shareholder value will necessarily mean leveraging accumulated information right up to the limit of the law.
Even if the local company is defiant, they'll start doing whatever the government wants after a series of replacements come in for upper management that say all the right things to the governing party.
Google receives some protection because of its status as an American company; the Chinese can't just seize Google's offices and tell them they're now owned by the government. Google's international and high profile, any foul play with their employees or their equipment can be made public with an almost negligible amount of effort and raise an international shitstorm.
But you're right that Google could refuse to do business in these countries, leaving their citizens with no alternative that has any chance of standing against the government at all. Question: how would you tell if Google's trying to help the Chinese people by giving them a viable alternative or if they're just trying to make more money with no regard for the Chinese people at all?
Could you please name a country where I do not disagree with *any* laws, so I can start my business there ...
...
And please don't say the USA or UK I already know I don't agree with some of their laws
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
I totally disagree, Google has shown remarkable restraint considering the tools they have available to them. If they were run by your standard corporate America sleazebags (eg your telcos or apple), they would be skewing the search results for their own ends, not disclosing what was sponsored or not, dropping competitors from their search etc. or they could be doing a facebook and selling off your private searches to their clients. They probably have a whole host of other options they could be exploiting currently if they really wanted to.
Now to answer another poster's comments, I don't think the problem is with the current management but what will happen when Larry & Sergey leave, that's when your typical slimeball CEO will start to exploit Google's tools for every nickel & dime. So can you see Larry & Sergey leaving anytime soon? If they wanted to take early retirement they could have done so already, also who has the capital to buy Google? So I think for the time being Google will remain relatively benign.
I'll see your hokum and raise you a boondoggle.
"Is Google being sincere about these issues, or is this effort mostly paying lip service to its 'do no evil' policy and an attempt to head off future clashes with policy makers?"
They realize, just as Microsoft eventually did, that if you're a large profitable corporation that you better be sending your protection money to Washington D.C. Otherwise, armies of government lawyers and bureaucrats will be working to make life hell for you.
It only makes sense that Google wants to offer the best to advertisers (to make money) while at the same time they don't want to become big brother to do it. Those with the most personal info about online users have a distinct advantage when serving ads, and advertisers know this. If there is a limit to what info can be kept -- then Google can compete in other ways, not have to fight a war of escalating personal information intrusion.
I love how you backed up your assertions with facts.
Oh wait... never mind.