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.
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 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?
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.
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!
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.