Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google Profiling Social Network Users

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:09 AM
from the well-of-course-they-are dept.
David Harry writes "Google is looking deeper into behavioral targeting of social network users with three more patents. A while back, one patent came to light in the poorly termed ‘friendrank’; Google could be profiling social network users. These three patents now bring the series to five in total."
+ -

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Google Seeking "FriendRank" Patent 80 comments
theodp writes "In its just-published patent application for Network Node Ad Targeting, Google hatches plans for identifying the most influential of a circle of friends and providing this 'influencer' with 'financial incentives from advertisers in exchange for permission to display advertisements on the member's [social network] profile' (sound familiar, Jeremy?). Doing so will 'provide advertisers with the option of targeting either all members in the community or advertising only on the profile of the influencer, thereby targeting the entire community,' explains Google. Who says you can't buy friendship!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
    • by goombah99 (560566) on Monday October 06 2008, @11:35AM (#25273765)

      Profiling? Sounds painful.

      Not if you use a profilactic, and remember boys, if she says "opt out" she means "opt out".

      More seriously, anyone who joins a social network wants to be profiled. Isn't that the whole point?

  • by InspectorxGadget (1230170) on Monday October 06 2008, @11:12AM (#25273505)
    Profliling - coming soon to a fliling center near you!
  • I'm reasonably confident Google _COULD_ do lots of things...

  • by yttrstein (891553) on Monday October 06 2008, @11:18AM (#25273577) Homepage
    How many people are genuinely surprised every time Google does anything to arouse suspicion (at least six times per day) or downright confirm (at least twice per week) that one of the major points to their monolithic presence in world--and not just the tech world--is data mining?

    I honestly don't understand. It's been quite clear for a number of years that Google has no problem selling jewels from their data mines to marketing clients who want them, mostly in the form of "targeted advertising".

    Of course Google is profiling social network users. Someone has to figure out what they want to buy.
    • by veganboyjosh (896761) on Monday October 06 2008, @11:57AM (#25274011)
      Someone has to tell them what they want to buy.

      Fixed that for you.
      • by D Ninja (825055) on Monday October 06 2008, @12:18PM (#25274275)

        Someone has to tell them what they want to buy.

        Sort of a funny story I have pertaining to this.

        After my girlfriend broke up with me, we changed our Facebook status to "Single." The next day, I was on Facebook and I noticed an eHarmony advertisement that said the following:

        "27 and single? PATHETIC. Visit eHarmony.com to find singles in your area."

        It's funny now, but I sort of wonder what kind of world we live in where you're "pathetic" for not being in a relationship. That part is sort of sad, really.

  • Not Alone (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Monday October 06 2008, @11:18AM (#25273579)
    If people think that Google is the only advertiser who's profiling people, they're daft. Any and every advertiser with a hint of intelligence studies their target audience and does everything within their power to know them better than they know themselves. Google just has more tools at their disposal than most advertising firms but they all do it.
    • If people think that Google is the only advertiser who's profiling people, they're daft. Any and every advertiser with a hint of intelligence studies their target audience and does everything within their power to know them better than they know themselves. Google just has more tools at their disposal than most advertising firms but they all do it.

      Even more important than Google's large toolbox is the exceptionally large size of their user base, and the fact that Google knows the email addresses and real names of a large fraction of that base.

    • Precisely! You know those membership savings cards grocery stores give you? It's a trade-off. They give you a small discount in the name of "member's savings", and in turn, you give them your shopping habits. So every item you ever buy through them with that card gets recorded. It lets them pinpoint what consumers like buying, so they stock up more on the hot sellers.

      And I'm pretty sure that the grocery stores do not keep this information to themselves...

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Of course it's useful to track that information down to a specific person. One example: Say you put milk on sale for $2/gallon. Are the people who are buying milk this week new customers, or are they the same old people who have been visiting your store? Tracking information like that is insanely useful.

          Put it in technical terms - in website logs, would you rather just have an overview of traffic data (you received 10,000 visits today), or do you actually want to see each request, where it came from, what p

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          It's not as nefarious as you think, but there is considerable value in tracking what you buy as a single consumer, both to you and to the store. The store would rather maximize value per consumer, than necessarily maximize sales. By maximizing sales from a smaller amount of consumers, they can potentially reduce inventory, and reduce labor, thus increasing profit for a given amount of sales. By tracking not just what was sold, but associations between goods sold, you can find out some interesting things

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I think it's also worth mentioning that the social networks themselves are profiling people. There's a reason they want you to enter your occupation, educational background, yearly income, and all other types of information.

      What drives me the most crazy is Facebook actually creates search pages for search engines to index. I'm the kind of person who likes my words to be seen by everybody, but my pictures to be under my own control. So I searched for myself on Google and found that not only do they put my na

  • by MosesJones (55544) on Monday October 06 2008, @11:28AM (#25273693) Homepage

    Seriously, this is a surprise?

    The world's biggest commercial data search and profiling company is going to profile yet more online, public information.

    I just wonder if the folks at Langley will sit up and say "prior art".

  • by i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) on Monday October 06 2008, @11:33AM (#25273739) Homepage Journal
    Do no evil? Hardly,... when Google became a publicly traded company their obligation became one thing..

    Make money for stockholders

    Few companies set out to do bad deeds but most won't rule them out. Google was supposed to be different. Regarding "Don't be evil"(tm), CEO Eric Schmidt recently clarified the policy saying that it was simply meant as a conversation starter.

    Here's Google from good to bad...
    Plus
    Creating a foundation to fight poverty.
    Plus
    Establishing on-site day care as an employee perk.
    Minus
    Giving Brazilian police access to private photo albums on Orkut to assist an investigation into child pornography.The lesser of two evils is still pretty lame
    Minus
    Google's on going smear campaign against Privacy International [google.com] for giving them a last place rank.
    Bigger Minus
    Raising cost of on site day care to $57,000 per year.
    Real big minus
    Instituting keyword filters at the request of the Chinese government. Google's do no evil policy only applies to the U.S.
    Source: Wired 16.10

    Honestly why should anyone be surprised that Google acts like any other company?
    • by rtb61 (674572) on Monday October 06 2008, @11:40AM (#25273809) Homepage
      To be fair, by far the majority of companies do not act in this fashion. They respect the privacy of their staff, they respect the privacy of their customers and of course they respect the privacy of total strangers. Only one very narrow segment of the industry continuously and very perversely invades the privacy of every one they can upon a massively and previously unheralded basis and think it is appropriate to attempt to psychologically manipulate people based upon their personal information in order to generate a profit at all costs.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Congratulations. You just summed up the entire 13 year history of Google in 6 bullet points.

      Next time, try and broaden [google.com] your biased view.
    • by D Ninja (825055) on Monday October 06 2008, @12:26PM (#25274399)

      Google bashing, huh? Ooo, fun!

      Seriously, though. Your "evil" points are somewhat weak.

      Creating a foundation to fight poverty.

      I'll agree. That's a good thing. Although, some people will argue that they're just using it to get the tax breaks.

      Establishing on-site day care as an employee perk.

      You have that down as a plus. But, if I don't have kids, that means my benefits are going towards something I don't use. Sounds kind of evil to me.

      Giving Brazilian police access to private photo albums...

      Private? How so? Private as in Picasa's "private" where it just means you don't come up in searches (but if you know the address, you can still find the album)? Or private as in password protected, etc. Also, the albums that they were given access to - were these people already under investigation. Was Google forced to give that information?

      Google's on going smear campaign against Privacy International [google.com] for giving them a last place rank.

      I don't know this one, so I can't speak to it.

      Raising cost of on site day care to $57,000 per year.

      From what? $56,000? $0? Either way - how does this make them evil? Daycare is freaken expensive. I can't believe people use it to be honest. The fact that Google is charging someone for this is not a big deal. I don't know of any place that offers this sort of service at all.

      Instituting keyword filters at the request of the Chinese government. Google's do no evil policy only applies to the U.S.

      Oh, now, you had to go there. See, at the surface level, Google did evil. They filtered words. BAD GOOGLE! The problem is, if they didn't do that, they would have NO influence in China. What's worse? For them to get their foot in the door and follow protocol now and try to influence change later, or never be there in the first place? It's easier to influence from the inside than it is from the outside. Once Google becomes ubiquitous in China, they will carry a lot more sway. Hopefully that use that to help the people there.

      Anyway, your cynicism is definitely well-deserved - lots of companies screw up (because they are run by people and people screw up). But, I just can't say I agree with the issues that you chose (either way).

  • From the html of http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]

    [script type="text/javascript"]
    var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
    document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
    [/script]
    [script type="text/javascript"]
    var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-32013-5");
    pageTracker._setDomainName("slashdot.org");
    pageTracker._initData();

    [/script]

  • Okay, this is totally off topic-- but could whoever keeps tagging every single story with 'story' please stop? Every story is-- guess what-- a story! Adding a "story" tag is not a useful piece of information. Might as well just tag every story with "IsTagged", too.
  • by paniq (833972) on Monday October 06 2008, @12:01PM (#25274067) Homepage

    I hope that all this uncomfortable profiling is really going to improve the ads I'm going to see.

    But how will I know when it works? Maybe when they start selling penis shrinking pills.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The kind of relations where in the real world you greet people friendly and discredit them behind their backs?

      You obviously do not have high school age daughters.