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?"
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!
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?
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;