Slashdot Mirror
Google Secret Privacy Document Leaked
siliconbits writes "A confidential, seven-page Google Inc. 'vision statement' shows the information-age giant in a deep round of soul-searching over a basic question: How far should it go in profiting from its crown jewels—the vast trove of data it possesses about people's activities? Should it tap more of what it knows about Gmail users? Should it build a vast 'trading platform' for buying and selling Web data? Should it let people pay to not see any ads at all?"
Should they be evil?
...thanks to Adblock
I would pay one adblock+
how much would you pay a month to see no ads on any website?
Nothing?
I quite like the idea that you could use ads that you pay for (that don't cost much) to advertise your party or to post silly messages to your friends. Of course the privacy implications of what google needs to know in order to be able to do this are absolutely terrifying, but the idea remains cute.
Additionally, I liked the idea when they turned it on its head, saying that certain individuals can agree to receive adverts of a certain type and you can then pay to have your adverts targeted to those people... such as recruiters.
I wonder the extent to which these ideas are just that : great ideas, but completely impractical in the real world, but this kind of brainstorming is what gives rise to the really good ideas in the end anyway, so its not surprising that they should be having this sort of discussion internally.
Salocin.com
...while I abhor some of Google's actions in recent years, they are in a simultaneously fortunate and unfortunate position. They are fortunate in that they have gotten where they are based on their own merits, including their ability to navigate the market with ease and giving people what they want.
They are unfortunate in that they are such a huge business; while customer and user satisfaction is still at the top of their list, nothing will ever be a higher priority than profit (as it should be with a business). This causes them to get sloppy, though...
I'm glad to see they are having at least some form of internal dialogue about just how greedy they should actually be ("greed is good", after all). This indicates that they are at least aware of the recent downturn in the public's perception of them.
Living With a Nerd
The key questions are:
1. Will some of the big holders get bitchy and want Google to start whoring they're data.
2. Does the management have enough backing votes to block other big shareholders from forcing the whoring.
When some of the shareholders get wind that Google is holding back to be "good", you can bet you asses that there's going to be some fighting and these are the times when founders and their values get thrown out the window.
What could save them is that most of the shareholders are mutual funds. Those guys are usually passive and are just along for the ride.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Google's hesitancy to move into places where DoubleClick once trod with near impunity. I don't mind Internet ads on websites. What I hate are the scummy, one-flat-stomach rule, teeth whitening, acai berry, and other similar ads that show up on almost every website, major and minor. This says nothing of the older types of annoying ads, like audio, flashing banners and pop-ups. I don't even like seeing the graphics of these sorts of ads because they're so visually displeasing. These sorts of ads are why I use Ad-Block, not because I am opposed to all advertising. Cookies had a reputation similar to these ads, and that's why Google was so hesitant.
You never know, a bit of a break-up may even be good for them.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Does anybody else notice the irony here?
Maybe this will give them an idea of how it feels to have your privacy invaded.
bluHatter
the marketing assholes in the board room, but if google sticks by its loyalty to privacy, they will remain a respected and profitable company for a very long time
if however they break their commitments to privacy, they will, indeed, reap a flurry of greater profits. but at the cost of driving away customers. the problem in a business like google's is there is always another search website, and even if its not quite as fast or accurate as google, if it makes a loud point of pledging to not rape your privacy, then it will even beat google, eventually
before there was google, there was altavista. before facebook, myspace. the king of the web does not have to stay the king of the web, and it can be quite sudden and amazing at how sudden and fast that fall can be. google better remember this
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Such a well timed 'leak' of something after a shitstorm of privacy sensationalism. Nothing to see here, imho.
It can be applied easily. Just make some script that posts random stuff with your name in it to thousands of forums. Then, when people search for your name, there will be so much noise that the results are useless. Noise is google's enemy.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Never in the history of American business has a company as large and powerful as Google NOT taken advantage of something this profitable and desired by those in control of the country.
I don't care what they say, or how many slogans they have that they sometimes follow and sometimes ignore - they're going to use this data. The only question is to wha extent - and given Eric Schmidt's recent statements on privacy and the future of the web (which were completely disgusting to me and likely to anyone else who values the internet as a place of freedom and growth), I expect that they will fully exploit all that they have.
I am not anti-Google, I love Google's products and I think their search engine is the best, and as far as large companies go they certainly aren't anywhere near the most evil - but the power and data they have, along with some of the places they've received funding from, combined with the attitude of their CEO is greatly concerning.
That's a sucker's question. Cable TV is $100/month and you still see ads. There is no end to the greed.
In traditional sense, shares of a company XYZ were meant to buy you, well exactly, "shares" of the company. Company made X amount of dollars, you got to share profits in accordance with what you own in that company. Company grew, the shares were worth more, however the idea was you got to share the profit. Sure you could sell your shares, however the concept got turned head over heals when shares themselves became trading commodities, so unless prices of shares rise, they are not valued, it does not matter if company is making a fixed X amount of profit year over year.
3 cheers for greed!
They don't seem to have actually posted the document, only excerpts. And to be extra annoying, they embedded them in some stupid flash interface. Here they are:
Vision Statement: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text1.png
Interest Targeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text2.png
This section pertains to Google's plans to sell ads targeted to users' interests across the Google Content Network (GCN) -- the more than one million websites on which it sells display ads. It argues that Google can better identify users' likely interests than competitors through sophisticated analysis and richer data.
Retargeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-retarg.png
Document discusses targeting ads at users who have already visited a particular website, known as retargeting. It notes that smaller ad companies have referred to such technologies as the "holy grail" of behavioral targeting, known here as "BT," but have struggled because they don't see users across enough sites. Google has since launched the feature across its display ad network.
Search: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text5.png
This section discusses how Google could begin to use its knowledge about what individuals have searched for to determine what graphical ads to show the person as they browse around the web.
Google Services: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text6.png
The excerpt identifies how Google could use data from services it owns to target ads across the web. Of those listed, YouTube is the only site where Google uses some data about what pages users visit to target ads on its display ad network.
"Wacky" Ideas: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text8.png
Once Google had the technology to be able to target ads to individual web browsers, it contemplated a range of ideas, including letting individuals pay not to see ads, block individual advertisers or share data about themselves in exchange for a discount on their Internet service bill. At least one idea, the Larry Page ad, was never pursued.
Advertising Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text9.png
Google planned to limit use such data about what websites people visited for targeting on sites where it sold ads, known as the Google Content Network, or GCN. Over time, allowing other ad buyers and sellers to use its data to identify people to target could boost business.
Data Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text10.png
The document contemplates how Google could build a new data marketplace, where companies could trade lists of web users they wanted to target with ads.
Unlinked Excerpts:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text3.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text4.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLE
You should pay to not see ads.
In 2009, Google earned about $0.1016 per visitor. So pay them about $37 a year and never see an ad.
There. Next question?
Anyways, the math:
620 million visitors per day.
23 billion yearly revenue.
$37.0968/visitor. .1016/day/visitor.
Actually, subscription search services are sounding like they are practical. This adds $3.09/month to your Internet bill. Add in obscene escalators for ludicrous groth in revenue, and this isn't much worse than your current ISP's rate increases, certainly not as bad as the TV bill.
Wow. And we could let the advertisers torture those too cheap to pay. Nice.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Don't worry, any evil policies are only in beta.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
In my opinion, the problem is Eric Schmidt. I trust both Larry Page and (even more so) Sergey Brin that they really try to live by "don't be evil". But Eric Schmidt transforms the company more and more into a profit-oriented, shareholder-controlled, greedy mess. I'm afraid that it will get a lot worse once Page and Brin lose give up control over the company. After all, most shareholders are concerned with return of investment, not things as silly as ethics. "By 2014, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin will have sold enough of their stock to give up majority control of the company, Google announced Friday evening." http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10440005-265.html Not something I'm looking forward to.
I don't have a problem with product placement; seeing Walt Kowalski drinking PBR and Heinekin instead of some made-up brand adds realism to the movie. But they didn't use to have commercials in the theater. They would have trailers for upcoming shows, but no ads for Coke or Toyota.
As to cable, cable channels didn't have commercials back in the day. Nor were the movies censored. Nor did thay have those goddamned annoying logos at the bottom right of the screen.
These days it seems nobody gives a damn about the audience. And they wonder why people are leaving in droves?
Free Martian Whores!
I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that by complying with the law they company is inherently not evil. I'm saying that you can't call a company evil for doing something they are legally required to.
Again, with the exception of Nazi Germany where you HAD to sell out people who were in one of the groups slated for death I can't think of many laws make you evil by sheer compliance with them.
If the government's law officials request or order Google to hand over information, that's not evidence that Google doesn't respect user privacy, it's merely evidence that Google is being law abiding citizens and helping the police track down a criminal. I would do the same if they asked me to and I had the ability to help. Now if Google went out of their way to help the government track down people who had unpopular views unconstitutionally that could be considered evil but that's falling into the Nazi laws territory which I feel is too extreme to use as a comparison for anything Google is currently engaged in.
results in more customers, or a perceived lack of one results in less customers, than a privacy policy directly translates into dollars, plus or minus, at some point
meaning, what i am saying and writing is not idealism, and is in fact in better touch with capitalist principles that you allude to but apparently understand less than i do
anyone can regurgitate simpleminded cynicism. what you write is even more useless than the airheaded idealism you dislike
it is unfortunate that so many loud boorish people think that their typical easy cynicism is a replacement for actual intelligence. frankly, its worse than the intolerant blind idealists out there. at least they can be interesting sometimes, no matter how flawed
but cynics are simply a dime a dozen, boring, and utterly useless, but unfortunately, always very loud and insistent on entering the conversation loudly announcing what everyone already knows as if it is some grand epiphany they think they have a monopoly on
lowest common denominator cynicism is not a replacement for intelligence. please, some of you shut up and think for once, then try to say something interesting for once
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it