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?"

27 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 davester666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or it goes to the cable tv model.

      You pay every month AND you get ads AND they sell your info [secret hint, all digital TV boxes report back to the mother ship what channels you record and when, what channel you are watching, and what shows you watch later].

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. 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
    4. Re:hah! by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Informative

      For Gmail and Google Apps, there is Google Apps Premier. You can pay $50 per user a year, you get no advertisements, and you get 25 GB to store your email instead of 9 GB. The only issue is that Google Apps Premier hasn't been rolled out to all the Google Services, and it forces you to juggle multiple accounts which is a pain. And it definitely does not cover Google Search (unless you default to the incognito tab every time, which anybody can do already).

      For Android, there are some ROMs that are privacy-oriented. I did try such a ROM, but I quickly reverted. In hindsight, I found that I did want google maps and google navigation to remember the last locations I had searched.

    5. Re: hah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      I just wrote an app that controls lights for people going away on vacation. I will be selling it at a loss, but figure I can make money on the names and addresses.

    6. 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
    7. Re:hah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But the companies are using custom 1-800 telephone numbers that identify you. There was a hospital or nursing school, I believe, that wanting to target gay males for nurses. They advertised on Facebook a special number that was only targeted to the gay males on facebook but the advertisement didn't mention that. When an applicant called the number for an interview, they immediately knew he was gay. This happenned even if he kept his profile private on Facebook.

    8. Re:hah! by PIBM · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When I had a satellite TV package, the contract forced me to connect the sat box to the phone line. The wording was quite exact, so I wasn't adding the required DSL filter to prevent my DSL from disconnecting and to allow them to transfer information. As I was requesting them to come over and fix my DSL and my satellite (it was putting itself in a degraded no HD channels mode everytime it failed to transfer the info) and I was explicitly refusing to add a DSL filter to the line since it wasn't in the contract, they finally disabled the auto-degrading-if-no-contact and I removed that wire.

      But, yeah, at least some companies were really banking on this.

    9. Re:hah! by wed128 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Facebook does give you the option to enter your sex, and the sex of people who interest you so.....there you go.

  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 neonKow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      AT&T is already selling my information too. And gouging me on prices. If anyone should offer utility prices, it should be the telecom companies. Wireless service needs to be less stupid.

    2. 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. Google services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. 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?

    2. Re:Google services by rtaylor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can have Google Search in-house.

      More specifically, you can buy Google Appliance which will index all of your in-house documents on a machine which lives in your office and provides a search interface for your own stuff.

      http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/campaigns/gsa7.html

      --
      Rod Taylor
  4. 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. Re:Stop worrying about Google. by JabberWokky · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also see http://www.dataliberation.org/ for how to exit.

      I'm pretty okay with Google at the start of 2013. Always watch for changing behavior, but that's true for everybody, including yourself.

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    5. Re:Stop worrying about Google. by aliquis · · Score: 4, Funny

      Also research is likely to be done with Google!

      I see a trap!

  5. 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.

    1. Re:Willing to pay? by tooyoung · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, which is why Google is testing the concept on slashdot...

  6. You think utilities don't track you? by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Consume Watchdog is a paid astroturfing company by tlambert · · Score: 4, Informative

    Consume Watchdog is a paid astroturfing company; specifically, they are owned by Grassroots Enterprises Inc."

    http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/

  8. 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!