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?"
A lot of the things google does aren't EVIL ... but aren't good. Think about the help they've given to china in the great firewall, and all the assistance they give to censoring. It shows that they're complying with the government ideas of good and evil, not the rights of the individual.
... and evil (in the USA) would be fighting the govn't.
In other words... google is going to 'do no evil'
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
They undoubtedly have the ability to, realistically, more thoroughly collect privacy-related data than almost any other non governmental agency.
While I believe that they are really trying to stick to the 'Do No Evil' ideal, I do believe that the groundwork they are laying down now is rife with the ability to be exploited in the future when, perhaps, they are run by people less concerned with idealism and more concerned about profits.
What they really need to dop is develop a variety of ways that they can, as much as they can, prevent themselves from abusing the power they have. Third party inspectors, not collecting some of the data in the first place, written and signed contracts concerning ethics and whatnot.
Will they all eventually fail? Most likely. But they can do a lot to slow the spread of the inevitable corruption.
At this point I think they are too idealistic to see it that way, though.
The average user hasn't got a clue that they're losing privacy.
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
I know, it is almost geek heresy to suggest that (G) is becoming, or has become, part of the EVIL CORPORATIONS GROUP (tm), along with M$, IBM, APPLE, Sun, EXXON and the Republicrat party.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I recently noticed that google logged my searching habits, and while I thought it was kind of cool to see the stats, I was weary of the thought of my habits cataloged. They may have a desire to utilize searches to target ads they think consumers may like, but it still comes down to making money for them. It's notable that they are pushing for consent from users to use data that is collected, but that has always been abused even with telephone and credit card companies handing out your data. I'd prefer an opt-in rather than an opt-out version so I don't have to worry about who is tracking what, or I'll just stick to track-me-not.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
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?
Say Google becomes evil, and then you want "out". What can you do? They have all your data, all your history. Your reputation, your personal preferences belong to them.
I'm no longer using google's email or history or anything. I run without cookies while I hit their site.
even on this page ( just look at the source ;) )
they have mountains of data coming in from their toolbar, adsense ads, analytics, search, gmail, docs, orkut, webmaster tools, etc am i missing anything?
they probably have a hard drive worth of data and profile info on each one of us
its kinda scary, and their "do no evil" motto is not reassuring at all, with so much info in their hands and no transparency...
Nobody would put up with somebody following them around all the time taking notes on everywhere they go, what they look, and what they buy. In most places such actions are against the law. What makes Google, or any other company for that matter, so special that they can get away it?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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.
If you're going to create a straw man, try to at least get the little facts straight before you put on the tinfoil...
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
I believe Google can do a lot of damage if the data they've been collecting somehow got in the wrong hands. For the public Google is a black box: You really don't know how much of what you put in, stay in. Relevant quote: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Google is handing over everything to the gov't which is yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Impeach them all, stop using Google and save this great country.
how about obeying existing laws? i will believe privacy legislation means something to google when the Sherman Antitrust Act means something to google.
Their PR people are touting "No Evil" as the company aggressively expands their monopoly. Don't pee down my back and tell me its raining!
It is absolutely impossible to know. Truly a quantum phenomenon. Which is an oxymoron, by the way.
What?
The security flaw I reported back in 2000 here: http://www.elvey.com/it/SPRs.html has finally been somewhat addressed - since the deal was announced, IIRC.
The policy now is relatively clear about the cookie opt-out only being a very partial tracking opt-out; they will still try to show you targeted ads even if you've opted out, although they still avoid explicitly admitting to doing IP-based tracking.
In other words, the DoubleClick opt-out system is still ineffective, but at least they admit it now.
Not lying about what you're doing is a big improvement in my book.
Make 'em pay! http://Payola.org #include "stddisclaimer
"Nicole Wong, Google's deputy general counsel, told reporters in Washington, D.C.: Google, in its own products and in policy discussions, has focused on three privacy principles: transparency of privacy policies, security of data and user choice, and control over how data is used, she said."
So I'd like to ask:
Nicole, why is DoubleClick's opt-out policy unclear as to whether IPs are used to deliver targeted ads to users who DO opt out?
Make 'em pay! http://Payola.org #include "stddisclaimer
Speaking of finesse, I personally appreciate a more graceful and elegant solution to achieving goals. In fact, I'm curious to know if the _goals_ of Google are more subtle themselves than people tend to realize.
In counterpoint, I offer the current U.S. Administration which: 1) demonstrates little finesse, and 2) far less productivity than the costs merit.
"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.
Weak, I know. The switch to decaf is killing me.
On the finesse side, there *is* a lot about Google that is potentially subversive in a good way.
But I can't help but notice this story about Google promising Washington they'll be good (so please don't regulate us) on the same page as one about Comcast suddenly promising to be good when threatened by net-neutrality regulation.
I covet your AeroPress.
Google's and Obama's appeal to me is that they are willing to pursue the idealism when others are not. For me, that is an invaluable attribute for a leader. After years of cynicism, I've tempered my fears a bit to be hopeful again and I believe I can trust, not only in the possibilities that these two entities offer, but also in the consequences if they fail. As another player in these dramas, our societies have proven to have serious bite when people make mistakes.
Again, citing the example of our current administration, I can _not_ believe that things can get any worse except if we continue to follow our current leaders.
People have been watching Google for a couple years now and (IMHO) they really haven't made any _consistent_ bungles that show some deep unconscionable agenda. I'm still watchful but given the choice, I'm going to lean towards them versus any other vendor for now just because they seem to have grown up with better parenting than others.
Regarding the painful side effects of beneficial actions, at least I can choose to associate myself with those that do act with principle as opposed to those that don't. Over various situations, I've found myself siding with the local merchant because the cost of doing business with the non-principled major vendor was too high to my conscience.
In one of the lectures that you can still find on Google video Sergey tells Stanford students that he is a believer that structure should be found within contexts by computers. Meaning that he believes that computers would do a better job finding what's related to what than one could possible hope to get people to indicate what's related to what via tags. He was actually saying that as a reason for his opposition to relying on tags. Well, applying the same belief to privacy (automation is better than relying on people) would mean that Google tools should be structured in such a way as to make lack of privacy impossible. Solve the problem with technology and then relying on people will be unnecessary. Why doesn't Google, for instance, encrypt all the data they store on their servers with keys which never hit the wire and are always stored on people's computers. Surely, all browsers' ssl infrastructure can be utilized for that. It seems like whoever is making these business decisions is not fully aware of what it is that makes Google better -- least human intervention with the data. Humans (in Google-paradigm... go ahead... I deserve the paradigm shift jokes) are supposed to write code and the code is supposed be the only thing touching the data. Well, just go one step further and make sure that the code is the only thing that can touch the data. Just my 2 cents.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Don't pee down my back and tell me its raining!
Oh, no! I wouldn't do that. No, certainly not.
However, you do seem to have some kind of water pipe leak, and it smells kinda briny. And I'm standing up here above you in order to check it out.
I could stop it for you for $100/hr?
Oh, wait, it stopped on its own. Hold on, gotta go grab another beer.
The enemies of Democracy are
> # Blocking trash websites
> 127.0.0.2 doubleclick.net
> 127.0.0.2 doubleclick.com
That'll waste cycles actually trying to communicate.
Use 0.0.0.0 as the IP instead, as a null route. No packets
will be tx on that route.
It is "Don't Be Evil" I put it to you Google thinks that that you can BE "not evil" while still DOing things that are evil. Also, the larger companies get the better they get at self deception. Thus you get things like GE's "We bring good things to life" (like nuclear bombs), ADM's "Supermarket to the World" (while cornering the market on Lysine and jacking up the price), and HP's "Invent" (when they haven't invented anything new since the laser printer).
Even a claim of censorship is spurious, as it's self-censorship and that's a different class of animal entirely. Google does nothing to prevent you from using a search tool (including THEIR OWN) which does not filter. The fact that China DOES prevent that *is* censorship. Google is about as complicit with that as I am with getting a speeding ticket.