Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Buzz — First Reactions

Posted by kdawson on from the what-it-is dept.

Google announced Buzz today, as we anticipated this morning. CNET has a workmanlike description of the social-networking service, which is integrated into gmail. CNET identifies a central obstacle Buzz will have to overcome to gain traction: "The problem, however, will be the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public over how much data the company already controls on their online habits." Buzz is being rolled out over the next few days so some people will see a Buzz folder in their gmail, but most won't yet (this Twitter post explains how Safari users can get an early glimpse). A blog posting up at O'Reilly Answers points out some of the distinguishing characteristics of Google Buzz — one interesting one being its ability to post an update either publicly or privately, at the user's option. This design choice places it between the public-by-default Twitter and the private-by-default Facebook. Lauren Weinstein sounds a note of caution about the inherent privacy risks of Google's method of filling out initial friend profiles by automatic friending.

18 of 310 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm... by socceroos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I went to buzz.google.com and signed up, but my Gmail account didn't change at all.

    I'm willing to give GBuzz a go, but I don't think I'll ever see myself getting caught up in social media networks - especially with Google's recent views on privacy.

  2. Public vs private by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem, however, will be the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public over how much data the company already controls on their online habits ." Buzz is being rolled out over the next few days so some people will see a Buzz folder in their gmail, but most won't yet (this Twitter post explains how Safari users can get an early glimpse). A blog posting up at O'Reilly Answers points out some of the distinguishing characteristics of Google Buzz -- one interesting one being its ability to post an update either pubilcly or privately, at the user's option.

    And that's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe. Even if you mark it private, you've still shared it with someone who believes that you have no right to privacy, and that if - as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it.

    1. Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And that's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe.

      But you regularly suck on the teat of that giant whore, yes?

      One of my new years resolutions was to dump google. I removed them from the list of search engines in my browsers. I don't need gmail - I have 2 email accounts with my ISP and about a dozen others on my various domains, and I have a lot more storage space than google will ever give me. I've never used google docs. I don't want or need google gears. I switched away from openDNS. There are alternatives to google news, and google maps, and google whatever - there is not much they're doing that is unique. The only thing I'll check (through scroogle.org) is how they rank a site, vs the other search engines. If they were to disappear tomorrow, I wouldn't need to do even that.

      I simply don't trust them - at this point, I'd even trust Microsoft more.

    2. Re:Public vs private by MarkWatson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have to disagree with you:

      Google performs statistical NLP on your data, and automatically finds good ads, etc.

      As per Google turning over your data to the government: we are probably close to total government access to everything we do, so I would chill out about stuff that we are helpless to do anything about (unless you are going to stop using the Internet).

    3. Re:Public vs private by D+H+NG · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Google is the only search engine with the balls to refuse a government subpoena to turn over its search records. Not Microsoft, not Yahoo!, not AOL.

    4. Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · · Score: 1, Interesting

      People don't care about privacy until they need it - then they care a LOT about it. I'm sure you have at least one piece of personal info you don't want posted all over the Internet. People want to be able to control their personal information that's why it's called "personal information" - it belongs to the person, not to google or whoever else is holding it "in trust", or more often, in violation of trust when there's a buck to be made.

      Facebook USED to claim people don't want privacy. They found otherwise the hard way, when Canada told them to fix their site or else. Sanctions include fines paid to the victims on a per-offense basis, so it could have been VERY expensive for Facebook to ignore it. BTW, violation of the protection of the whistle-blowers section is a criminal offense. We take privacy seriously, and we recognize that whistle-blowers play an important part in keeping companies honest.

      Privacy allows us to ask questions we wouldn't necessarily want to ask to the whole world. When people write to me privately about their transgender issues, do you think they want me posting it all over the net? Seriously ... when a slashdotter or anyone else writes me that they're either [married | have kids | in a fundie church | work with rednecks | are republican] or any combination of those factors, and they have gender identity issues, they certainly have a right to expect me NEVER to share their personal information.

      It's one reason I don't regret that I dropped my US-based host - Canada == much better privacy legislation. It's also why the privacy policy doesn't mince words - I don't say "we release information if we have a reasonable expectation that the requesting party has made an enforceable request" - which is google's way of saying "If we think they COULD get a warrant, we'll roll over on you." - it says "get a warrant"

      Sharing of private data

      3 words - "get a warrant.". Clear. Plain. Simple. Easy to understand. No weasel-words. Unequivocal.

      Private data will not be shared with others, including government agencies and/or law enforcement, without a validly-issued warrant signed by a judge from a Canadian court.

      "Requests" from outside Canada lack jurisdiction, even under "long-arm" statutes of countries like the United States, because transboutique.com is not a commercial site, so it fails to meet the "do significant business" requirement of the long-arm statute.

      This is the only way to conform to Canadian privacy laws. A "reasonable expectation" that they "could" get a warrant is not enough.

      Commercial sites could do the same - invoking the long-arm statute by a foreign commercial entity STILL requires a valid warrant.

    5. Re:Public vs private by nine-times · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you've still shared it with someone who believes that you have no right to privacy, and that if - as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it.

      In fairness, he didn't say you had no right to privacy, and the quote is often taken out of context. It was in the context of saying:

      If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.

      So he's not saying, "screw you, I don't value your privacy." He's giving a warning that your information is probably not as private as you'd hope regardless of what service providers you're using. Microsoft also keeps records of searches for some amount of time (I believe it's at least 6 months) and they *will* turn that information over to the government. You know what? Your ISP has records of your web surfing, and will probably turn it over to the government if asked. Assuming you don't host your own email, there are employees at your email service provider who can read your email. These are things you should know.

      His advice may be a little flippant, but it's not bad. If there's something that you would be totally ashamed if people found out you were doing it, then you should probably at least consider not doing it. That's true regardless of whether that "something" takes place on the Internet. Of course, the Internet, as it exists today, isn't any good at securing privacy. Most people don't encrypt their email, which means even if you want to, you can't. Websites keep track of which IP requests come from and your ISP keeps records of your IP. Unless you're rerouting encrypted traffic through proxies, you have TONS of information out in the open. It would be irresponsible of Google to claim that they can ensure your privacy.

      So I'd put it this way: If you absolutely cannot afford to let anyone know that you've done certain things online, then you should either be taking strong enough measures to secure your own privacy that Google couldn't track you if they wanted to, or else you should just not be involved in those activities. Otherwise, you're just taking your chances.

      I'd say the much more valid grounds for concern with Google is that, with all the services they offer, it's such one-stop-shopping for anyone looking to invade your privacy.

  3. Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Do people really trust Google less than Facebook?

  4. Yep, Facebook is turning into another Myspace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    People wouldn't be so excited over Buzz if Facebook wasn't turning their site/service into another Myspace mess that is just painful to use. Initial impression of Buzz is that it is very clean and pleasant to use compared to Facebook which just feels clunky for anything other than just casual status updates of friends.

  5. Re:Backlash? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It just occurred to me that if I create a google account from a normal computer I can use any name for myself that I choose. But a phone running android must use my real name (its in the contract for the phone) so android may be a way to associate made up identities with real identities.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  6. Not a threat for now... by MrCrassic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I feel that Buzz is a sign that the Google Mail team is losing touch. Most people, myself included, use Google Mail (or at least their web interface) to check and compose e-mail. That's it. With Buzz thrown in the mix, now people can check their email as well as follow the people they're emailing through pictures, videos, status updates, etc. All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing, which is, like regular mail, to simply correspond.. Thus, I don't really see this being a threat to Facebook at all because people go on Facebook precisely for these kinds of things. It's Facebook's walled garden paradigm that makes these interactions even feasible, since friends share this kind of information in real life as well.

    Additionally, whatever happened with Wave? Wasn't that platform supposed to be the springboard for this "revolutionized email?"

    1. Re:Not a threat for now... by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I feel that Buzz is a sign that the Google Mail team is losing touch. Most people, myself included, use Google Mail for.....

      Wow, you've queried other Gmail users? Please publish your findings!

      With Buzz thrown in the mix, now people can check their email as well as follow the people they're emailing through pictures, videos, status updates, etc. All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing, which is, like regular mail, to simply correspond..

      Get off your lawn, while we're at it, Mr. Annoying?

      TURN IT OFF.

      So you don't want to use it, jesus who gives a shit? Just turn it off.

      In your opinion, the "Google Mail team" is losing touch by offering a new feature that lets people connect with each other more, in a way very similar to two other extremely popular ways to do the same... yeah, you're right, they're really out there in left field! What were those crazy loons thinking!

      Additionally, whatever happened with Wave? Wasn't that platform supposed to be the springboard for this "revolutionized email?"

      Oh, wait a second, suddenly you're interested in cutting edge ways to communicate with people? Weren't you just telling us one paragraph ago that Google Mail people are totally out of touch because you and every person you surveyed uses Gmail in one specific way and isn't interested in anything new? But now you're asking about Google Wave?

      Google Wave is totally different from this product. They're still beta testing it. For someone that thinks like you do, imagine Google Wave as Google Docs, if the Google Docs team suddenly lost all touch with reality, and decided to add a new feature that let people communicate with each other in new ways.

      Cry me a river!

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  7. Watch The Terminator movies again by kriston · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All I can suggest is to watch "The Terminator" movies again.
    Google's explicit goal is to collect all data possible and index it for the benefit of humankind. This includes artificial intelligence--indeed a senior director of Google is an acknowledged AI scientist. The application of AI to the corpus of all data possible is profound. The digitization of books, the collection of browing habits, the analysis of web sites, and the analysis of all GMail users' email data, compounded with myriad other data sources could provide an interesting advanced intelligence. Even if it's just a Deep Blue style of brute-force thinking, the corpus upon which this "hive mind" will draw is profound.
    Google is the real Skynet.
    Nobody knows what will happen, but it's going to be profoundly amazing.

    --

    Kriston

  8. Re:Now's the Time by MrCrassic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hear this claim made a lot, though I never see any warrants to back it up. Lots of people have expressed how Facebook is "so much harder to use," but never say where. Frankly, I think Facebook's layout is extremely clean for being as feature-rich as it is. Seriously, it takes me less than thirty seconds (not including any manual activity on my behalf) to post notes, pictures or (especially) status updates. On top of that, it's still incredibly fast and reliable, especially given its scale. (I've seen it have some downtime, but nowhere near MySpace levels.)

    Facebook is going to need one really strong David to take it down, and I look very much forward to the one that does, since that only means it will be even more awesome.

  9. Re:Now's the Time by Hadlock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think they're trying to minimize database hits. Not really sure what criteria it uses to show what's "popular". You can bump the number of people the live feed shows up to 9999, which is what I have mine set to, so you still have full functionality of before.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  10. Re:Social Privacy ? by nine-times · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well and let's be honest, the Internet just isn't a private place at this point.

    When it comes to Internet communication, I don't think you get much more private than email, and yet I don't know a single person who bothers to encrypt their email as a matter of course. I don't. I have email sitting in multiple different accounts on servers owned by various companies. I know that there are employees at each company who are capable of reading my email if they choose to. I think they shouldn't and I hope they don't, but my email still isn't encrypted.

    On the whole, we rely on really big numbers to keep us safe on the Internet. There are probably billions of email accounts in the world, and each of us it hoping that our email isn't interesting enough for anyone else to bother to look at. Whether you know it or not, that's largely what you're relying on to keep your privacy: your relative unimportance.

    It's so much weirder to me that, with all the lack of real privacy online, people expect privacy on sites where the sole purpose of the site is to broadcast personal information about yourself.

  11. The general public? by miffo.swe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public"

    I dont for a second believe that the so called backlash stems from the same general public that happily posts medical, sensitive, embarrassing and sexy stuff on Facebook/Myspace. The "backlash" is a PR-stunt.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  12. Re:Now's the Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm one of those ready to give up, as my status feeds appear hours old now. I'm not getting updates, or when I do, they disappear on the next refresh. My parents are also using Facebook and I've had to field calls from them because they can't find things now. For example they use the same computer and my mom could not find the logout option so she could log in and ended up just viewing my dad's stuff. The problem is Facebook is changing the UI way too often it was less than a year ago they went through another huge change. At least with Google Buzz, it's very similar to my Gmail which has not gone through huge UI changes, but instead uses incremental changes to not overwhelm and require users to relearn the whole site.