Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Should We Have the Option of Treating Google Like a Utility?
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?"
They'd happily take your money, and promptly "lose" your information a few times a year for more.
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.
My company actually has several private in-house Google services, search, wave-like thing, docs, etc. It cost us a good deal up front, I honestly don't know how much, but we insist on using them because we can guarantee they do not leak information out (they are even firewalled from reaching outside the company).
So it is at least possible.
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.....
For everyone here who says he's willing to pay rather than be tracked, the chances rise that someone here will develop that service.
Your electric company is likely installing "smart" meters in your area...so they can track you more easily. Your phone company--cellular or otherwise--tracks your every move, literally. Your cable TV provider tracks your viewing habits in minute detail. What makes you think that treating Google "like a utility" will make them stop tracking you...or even stop sending you advertisements?
Remember when cable TV first came on the scene? They offered "commercial-free" television, in exchange for a monthly subscription fee. You can see how well that idea worked out!
Your offer of money wouldn't really change anything. It would only give you temporary relief, and Google more of your money than they need to have.
It's called the "Jack Mehoff" account.
1) Create a Google sign in with "Jack Mehoff" or another name
2) ???
3) Live a profitable and secure life
Your subscription has to not only exceed the revenue from the ads you may receive.
It has to exceed the total loss to Google from the whole customer base.
If I can buy Google with no ads for $10/mo, then Google ads become served to a whole lot less people for who $10/mo is irrelevant.
These are some of the most lucrative recipients, and creaming off the richest customers from the ad-base reduces the amount advertisers will pay.
And the reason that business model isn't viable is because most people aren't willing to pay that much to access a website. They'll just switch to Bing.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Total consolidated revenue for Google is 50,175,000,000 (50 Billion). They serve about 1 Billion users, that's $50/user that they will perpetually make.
The thing to consider is that regardless of whether or not you choose to pay, they will make $50/year from your data and that data is already largely anonymized and aggregated, it's not like advertisers pay them specifically to track YOU therefore YOU have no loss of privacy per se (only the illusion that you have lost it since machines are able to very specifically target to a certain subgroup you identify with).
Also, don't forget that this is a perpetual income stream. If you stop paying your $10/month (or whatever) they lose revenue. If you stop servicing through them however, they will continue to keep all your data and continue to aggregate and sell it's anonymized content continuing to generate revenue from your past.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Or you can just use DuckDuckGo
Which services, specifically? Most services Google offers have paid competitors. Google Maps? There are plenty of mapping apps. Gmail? Your ISP already provides you email. If you don't trust your ISP, reagan.com has an email service with strong privacy guarantees.
Have you purchased Streets and Trips, or a Delorme product and do you use it? If not, there's the answer - the premise is flawed because you in fact do NOT choose to pay cash. Rather, you prefer Google's ad based model. I do too, for many services Google offers - I use their navigation and if that gets me an ad for some tourist attraction that's on my route, I'm okay with that. I choose not to use their email service, and pay with my time, maintaining my own email system.
Facebook / social networking is kind of the oddball. The whole POINT is that it keeps track of who your social circle is, so that really can't be done without a big ass database connecting friends and friends-of-friends.
Consume Watchdog is a paid astroturfing company; specifically, they are owned by Grassroots Enterprises Inc."
http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/
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!
People underestimate how much is spent advertising to them. At one point the New York Times had an article on Facebook that noted you were only worth $5 a year to Facebook, when the NYTimes was getting $1000 annually per subscriber with their "declining" print business.
Would you pay $1000 annually for the New York Times? Probably not. Newspapers used to be very expensive and people rarely bought them. The model of putting ads in them caused a huge surge in sales. The ads were annoying as hell, they didn't cost you anything personally.
There are paid competitors to many Google products. People chose to use free versions with ads instead.
Or you can just use DuckDuckGo
One of the few website names that makes Yahoo! and Bing sound classy.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
They are paying you, just not in cash. They are paying you by providing valuable services for free.
Sure seems like it. Every load of BS that MS wants to promote seems to be a slashdot article. As if this corporate propaganda were actually news.
If you don't like the service they are providing for whatever reason, decide if you dislike it enough to find another provider. Then, do it and leave the old one. Why do we have any right to force them to change their business model?
As much as they think otherwise, the internet is not made of Google and Facebook. Alternatives exist and ought to be considered. For instance, instead of Youtube, try posting at Archive.org, instead of Twitter, use Identi.ca, instead of Facebook, use e-mail. These major companies are creating 'gated communities' where they control what goes in and out. You need not wring your hands, the internet worked fine before Facebook and Google. If my suggestions are no good, look up other alternatives and pursue a free internet.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE