Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ask Slashdot: Should We Have the Option of Treating Google Like a Utility?

Posted by Soulskill on from the you-are-the-product-being-sold dept.

eegad writes "I've been thinking a lot about how much information I give to technology companies like Google and Facebook and how I'm not super comfortable with what I even dimly know about how they're handling and selling it. Is it time for major companies like this, who offer arguably utility-like services for free in exchange for info, to start giving customers a choice about how to 'pay' for their service? I'd much rather pony up a monthly fee to access all the Google services I use, for example, and be assured that no tracking or selling of my information is going on. I'm not aware of how much money these companies might make from selling data about a particular individual, but could it possibly be more than the $20 or $30 a month I'd fork over to know that my privacy is a little more secure? Is this a pipe dream, or are there other people who would happily pay for their private use of these services? What kinds of costs or problems could be involved with companies implementing this type of dual business model?"

15 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. hah! by Artea · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They'd happily take your money, and promptly "lose" your information a few times a year for more.

    1. Re:hah! by Artea · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By "lose" I mean "share information with a trusted partner" clause in their privacy contract that lets them get away with selling it anyway.

    2. Re:hah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You say that, buuut it's FUD, plain and simple.

      Google does not sell personal information to third parties *ever*. They use that information to show targeted ads + search results. Period. And they have been pretty honest about that. If you are uncomfortable with what Google is doing with its data internally, I disagree, but I can't really argue with you. There have certainly been a couple pretty big screwups (Streetview anyone?) and different people have very different ideas about what level of data+usage is "okay".

      But if you think Google is exposing this data third parties in any way beyond showing targeted ads and obeying court orders, I call BS. There is a pretty damn firm line in the sand there, and never in my time at Google has someone even suggested it might be negotiable.

    3. Re: hah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously? When you buy an app from an app developer, they need your contact information for payment processing. That's how it's always worked, and it's hardly been a secret.

    4. Re:hah! by iserlohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obviously that's what Google and Facebook are doing already - they aren't selling your information, but access to your attention. The information they collect from you allows for more targeted selling so that the advertisers can select exactly who will see their ads.

      --
      :. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
    5. Re:hah! by iserlohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not according to their privacy policy. What you may be referring to is the anonymous identifier that is used when they serve ads through their ad network.

      Regarding "real" data sharing - again according to the privacy policy, it is only under 4 situations that they do it -

      - With your consent (explicit opt-in)
      - With domain administrators (for Google Apps users)
      - For external processing (Google outsourcing their internal processing)
      - For legal reasons (ie. by the government or courts)

      Of course, whether they adhere to the policy is a completely different matter altogether.

      --
      :. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
  2. AT&T by michaelmalak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How much you would be willing to pay AT&T to ensure they did not give your information to the NSA?

    For the analogy-impaired: Google and Facebook might be happy to sell you "privacy", but they're still not going to say "no" when the feds come knocking.

    1. Re:AT&T by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google has a far better track record than just about anyone else in this regard. They have said no to the US before, and they have said no to China before, many many times.

      Why do yahoo, bing / MS, et al get a free pass on this? MS already works with China (via skype) to intercept VOIP, and theyve also cooperated with China's censorship in varying degrees; Yahoo has already worked with China to reveal political bloggers. Yet noone gets on their case, simply because theyre not the big dog on the block.

      Honestly? Im happy that of all the possible tycoons of the advertising age, we have someone who puts up some token of resistance towards governernmental requests.

  3. Stop worrying about Google. by Dynedain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google only does anonymous aggregated data. They act as a gateway between you and the advertiser.

    Who you should be worried about is all the other huge companies tracking your behaviors on websites. They're the ones buying and selling your data, trading in "partnership" agreements, and finding other ways to identify you specifically.

    Google doesn't want to know *you*, they want to just send ads to various group of people that you can be categorized into.

    --
    I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    1. Re:Stop worrying about Google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They claim that. Do you honestly believe an advertising company to tell the truth now or in the future?

    2. Re:Stop worrying about Google. by ferret4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The important point, to me at least, is this is what Google are claiming. Therefore it is impossible for Google to offer a $20 per month fee to not aggregate and sell your data: if they cannot identify what data is being generated by you, they cannot guarantee they are not aggregating and selling it. To do so would either force them to identify individuals specifically, or force them to admit they already can.

    3. Re:Stop worrying about Google. by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of the 3 major search companies (MS, Yahoo, Google), which has said no to China's requests for call monitoring (skype), search censorship, and to reveal the names of political bloggers?

      Of the 3 major search companies, who has actually ever said "get a warrant" when asked for information extra-judicially by the US Govt?

      Ill leave you to research and consider that.

  4. Willing to pay? by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For everyone here who says he's willing to pay rather than be tracked, the chances rise that someone here will develop that service.

  5. Re:Google services by Qwavel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No. You can't have Google Search, Docs, etc. in-house.

    What you can have, is exactly what the summary describes as a "pipe dream".

    It's called Google Apps, it costs $50/year. Also, Google never has "sold" people's data. (Twitter does and Netflix is going to soon.)

    How did this summary (and the previous one about the Pixel, which was equally misleading) ever get through?

  6. Secrecy clause + the $1.3 billion data center by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google are not allowed to disclose even the request, let alone Google's reaction to it. The recent Supreme Court decision was along partisan lines, i.e. Republicans voted you can't challenge the super secret orders unless you can prove you've been spied on, and you can't prove you've been spied on because they're super secret. Hence NSA has a completely free hand.

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/02/26/231203/supreme-court-disallows-fisa-challenges?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed

    What Google shows is the regular legal process which is a subset. It likely a tiny subset too, since NSA has this huge new data center its built in UTAH and it's difficult to imagine they'd build a data center that dwarfs Facebook's if they weren't hoovering up most of Google and Facebook's, email banking and every other kind of data.

    What's laughable is Americans think they're immune from it!