Google Attempts to Allay US Privacy Fears 101
Ian Lamont writes "Google is in the midst of a full-court privacy effort in Washington that involves pushing consumer privacy legislation in U.S. Congress, reaching out to privacy advocates in an effort to allay concerns about its acquisition of DoubleClick, and working with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to 'fine-tune online advertising principles' that the agency proposed last year. Google has been under fire in Washington in recent years — the FTC investigated the Google/DoubleClick deal and the EFF has issued warnings over Google services in the past. Is Google being sincere about these issues, or is this effort mostly paying lip service to its 'do no evil' policy and an attempt to head off future clashes with policy makers?"
As evil as they are/will be (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, Google doesn't want competition!
Limits to succeed in other ways (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Their PR people are touting "No Evil" as the company aggressively expands their monopoly. Don't pee down my back and tell me its raining!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, no! I wouldn't do that. No, certainly not.
However, you do seem to have some kind of water pipe leak, and it smells kinda briny. And I'm standing up here above you in order to check it out.
I could stop it for you for $100/hr?
Oh, wait, it stopped on its own. Hold on, gotta go grab another beer.
Google helps ... (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words... google is going to 'do no evil'
Re:Google helps ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google helps ... (Score:5, Insightful)
China, France and Germany, on the other hand, have required Google to actively censor their sites. Google's expressed some regret over paying the price for China, but it's not clear cut either way. If you fight the Chinese government on Chinese soil, you lose unless you're very good at hiding yourself. Do you honestly think that Google's going to be able to avoid the Chinese agents that come to shut them down and arrest their employees? Do you think China would be better off if Google had never gone there in the first place?
Re:Google helps ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Google helps ... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but it is their place to decide WHERE they do business. Saudi Arabia may have a law that says a woman must be imprisoned for having pre-marital sex and that companies have to cooperate in any prosecution of such a case (by providing her emails and phone records, etc.). But I'm damn sure never going to follow that law because I'm damn sure never going to do business in Saudi Arabia as long as they have those kind of evil bullshit laws.
Google hides behind that lame "we're just following the law" excuse just because they don't want to give up the money they stand to make from the Chinese market. The only logical response to "we're just following the law" is "If their law requires you to do evil things if you're doing business in their country, then why are you doing business in their country in the first place?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If their law requires you to do evil things if you're doing business in their country, then why are you doing business in their country in the first place?
Who does it hurt for Google to not do business in China or Saudi Arabia? It hurts Google. It hurts the citizens, because they have fewer/no alternatives. It doesn't hurt China or Saudi Arabia, they'd probably prefer to have a homegrown solution which can more easily be bent to their will; Google would follow the letter of the law after they're compelled, a local company would follow the spirit of the law.
Even if the local company is defiant, they'll start doing whatever the government wants after a ser
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Google helps ... (Score:5, Insightful)
And please don't say the USA or UK I already know I don't agree with some of their laws
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state
Parliamentary democracy
In the Caribbean
How do I become a citizen
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And Google, in this case, would different how from the throngs of patriotic, God-fearing Americans shopping the aisles of Walmart? Or Slashdotters boasting about the price they paid for a piece of electronics similarly made in China?
Look, each and every one of us participates or plays some role in both good and evil every day. Your participation
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
patriotic, God-fearing Americans shopping the aisles of Walmart?
Those have never walked the earth since Sam Walton died, taking all the US goods with him. Now, they spend money antagonizing anyone who questions their presence. Should a product be defective, they'll pass you to someone more corrupt than Enron.
Or Slashdotters boasting about the price they paid for piece of electronics similarly made in China?
You misspelled junk.
The difference with Google is their background having no shred of humility - merely Stanford snobbery. Try again when they have only one class of shares and someone forces their hand out of China.
Re: (Score:2)
Once and for all the google "do no evil" is long dead, they edited it to "You can make money without doing evil" http://www.google.com.au/corporate/tenthings.html [google.com.au] which of course is marketdroid speak for 'you can make more by being evil' of course sneaking in the edit whilst the googlites still tr
Re: (Score:2)
What use would it be to get blocked?
They arent doing evil, thats the Chinese government.
No they arent supporting the government, they are supporting the people.
I'd imagine that they are quite annoyed by the Chinese but there is nothing they can do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet a lot of gun-runners, drug-dealers, pimps, and others who indirectly profit off evil tell themselves the same thing every night. "Hey, I'm not doing evil, THEY'RE the ones doing it. So what if I make some money helping them? If I didn't do it, someone else would."
Re: (Score:1)
So you don't buy gasoline? You don't ride buses that buy gasoline? You don't fly on airplanes that use oil products?
Even if that gas you buy doesn't come from Saudi Arabia, it's price is affected by world markets. You would have to buy the equivalent of "fair trade" gasoline at a significant premium to avoid doing business with the Saudis.
I think Saudi Arabia is odious, but I don't pretend I'm actually doing anything about it. By driving a car I
We have our own crappy laws here (Score:1)
We have some laws here, for instance concerning drug u
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Just a bit silly", perhaps, but it's in response to Google's own self-promotion.
People don't say to GM or IBM or McDonald's, "I can't believe you're selling in China." Everyone expects GM to be about money, money, money.
But if Google sells itself as a new economy, uber-green (being good for humanity, much less the planet) company, they'd better expect a lot of heat when their privacy behavior is gray, or when they help keep the internet from being the instrument for change that some hope it will be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is Google not a collection of people? Don't individuals have the responsiblity to help defend the rights of others? Don't individuals have the responsiblity to stand up to unjust laws? Our founders believed that an unjust law was not a law the moment it was passed, you can see that in what happens when a law is deemed unconsitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
No, fighting the government is neither evil nor good without motivation; what motivation do they have to fight the government? They've fought it before, and I haven't heard of them caving since.
Well, since the government likes to hand out National Security Letters (aka No Such Letter) with relative abandon, none of us are likely to hear about it.
My worry isn't with Google abusing its database, it's with the government co-opting the database for The War on Drugs/Terror/Prostitution/etc. If you can't imagine that such a thing would happen, I'd suggest that is very naive.
Strict privacy laws protecting consumers would have prevented things like voluntary TelCo cooperation with the NSA. I can't imagin
Re: (Score:2)
Think about the help they've given to china in the great firewall,
You have your facts confused. China had deals with MSN and Yahoo! that were outright and undeniably evil (Yahoo! having gotten some bad press over turning over records on dissidents who were then jailed).
Google WAS UNAVAILABLE IN CHINA. In order to be available, they had to provide a site that was filtered. They did so. Having done so, they didn't improve or harm the state of the Great Firewall, nor could they have in any way. They had exactly two options: appear alongside their competition in China in a g
Re:Google Apologist in parent (Score:2)
They've allowed filtering as required by local laws, which is the entrance criteria. However, they also offer a fully uncensored site to those who know how to get to it (and yes, many Chinese know how to get to real services).
That's compliance with China, full stop.
You're clearly confused about the work that Google is doing for you and your privacy.
The only privacy they know is the kind done by their invitation system. That's it.
You have your facts confused. China had deals with MSN and Yahoo! that were outright and undeniably evil (Yahoo! having gotten some bad press over turning over records on dissidents who were then jailed).
That does not make Google's deeds less evil for assisting.
Re: (Score:2)
They've allowed filtering as required by local laws, which is the entrance criteria. However, they also offer a fully uncensored site to those who know how to get to it (and yes, many Chinese know how to get to real services).
That's compliance with China, full stop.
Yes. And complying with China's laws is not what the OP claimed. They claimed that Google helped to build the GFoC, which they did not in any shape way or means.
Even a claim of censorship is spurious, as it's self-censorship and that's a different class of animal entirely. Google does nothing to prevent you from using a search tool (including THEIR OWN) which does not filter. The fact that China DOES prevent that *is* censorship. Google is about as complicit with that as I am with getting a speeding ticket
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google helps Chinese oppression. (Score:2)
having Google provide a slightly censored set of search results for people in China, or having Google be blocked completely for the Chinese and them being forced to use a China-run search engine?
Do neither and motivate them to use their unfiltered version by the lack of a filtered version.
If Google doesn't keep its foot in the door in China, then there is absolutely nothing it can to do try and promote change.
Perhaps being right outside their reach and providing other services in places such as Hong Kong and Taiwan that would put the local services to shame. Push them to push their government.
If Google doesn't censor results, the Chinese government would be more than happy to just block them completely.
Return the favor, and block known IP ranges that correspond to Chinese government facilities. Return the message they return to blocked sites. Normal users who get around the filter would be just fine.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I have a question (Score:5, Insightful)
not worried yet, but when? (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm no longer using google's email or history or anything. I run without cookies while I hit their site.
Sincere? I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
The latter. This is pure damage-control on Google's part...they can see their "do no evil" veneer is starting to wear a bit thin, and are busily applying a few more layers of polish to keep things looking pretty. If they were actually sincere, they might address some of the root problems, such as the glaring privacy issues inherent in Gmail and Google Desktop.
Their Power (Score:5, Interesting)
While I believe that they are really trying to stick to the 'Do No Evil' ideal, I do believe that the groundwork they are laying down now is rife with the ability to be exploited in the future when, perhaps, they are run by people less concerned with idealism and more concerned about profits.
What they really need to dop is develop a variety of ways that they can, as much as they can, prevent themselves from abusing the power they have. Third party inspectors, not collecting some of the data in the first place, written and signed contracts concerning ethics and whatnot.
Will they all eventually fail? Most likely. But they can do a lot to slow the spread of the inevitable corruption.
At this point I think they are too idealistic to see it that way, though.
Is Google becoming the new Evil? (Score:2)
Re:Their Power (Score:5, Insightful)
And with that statement, Google proves that their massive PR campaign has worked.
Google is evil and does do evil quite regularly. They are, in fact, at least as evil as any other typical publicly traded company.
I'm not sure now if they ever actually cleaved to the "don't be evil" philosophy, or just started it as a PR campaign and went about their business, cheerfully ignoring it internally.
Google is idealistic? Not even remotely--they're aggressive, mercenary, and willing to sell their grandmother's sexual secrets for a profit. In other words they're just another company. The only thing that makes them unique is their amazing ability to keep blinders on most of the otherwise internet-savy public.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh wait... never mind.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
> 127.0.0.2 doubleclick.net
> 127.0.0.2 doubleclick.com
That'll waste cycles actually trying to communicate.
Use 0.0.0.0 as the IP instead, as a null route. No packets
will be tx on that route.
opt-in (Score:2, Interesting)
Contrast to Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
google is everywhere (Score:1)
they have mountains of data coming in from their toolbar, adsense ads, analytics, search, gmail, docs, orkut, webmaster tools, etc am i missing anything?
they probably have a hard drive worth of data and profile info on each one of us
its kinda scary, and their "do no evil" motto is not reassuring at all, with so much info in their hands and no transparency...
Stalking (Score:2)
Anthropomorphization (Score:5, Insightful)
A corporation is a thing, not a person. It has no more consciousness than a hammer does, and therefore the concept of morality does not apply. A hammer is neither moral not immoral. It is amoral, and a corporation should be handled similarly.
This unconscious anthropomorphizing and the atmosphere of anonymization it creates has tempted more than a few people to try to pull some pretty underhanded stunts, particularly in the last ten years, then turn around and point at the sign out on the front lawn and claim that it was the "corporation" that actually did the foul deed. Then the hue and cry goes out to punish the instrument instead of the instigators. As if the cubicle worker and the office janitor had the faintest idea.
What rubbish.
In a hit-and-run, it isn't the car that is prosecuted. Similarly, the question should not what "Google" is doing, but what the CEO, Dr. Eric Schmidt is doing. Or, at most, what the members of the Board of Directors are doing. People make the decisions; not the hammer.
Now; how about we this try again, and this time plug the names of people in, instead of an anonymous, faceless corporation's?
'Nuff said.
.
Re:Anthropomorphization (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No. I think that the real purpose is to shield the non-controlling shareholders. In this way, investments can safely be made in companies, since the risk is limited to the investment.
Before the invention of the limited liability company, if a company failed, owing money, the shareholders could be sued -- thus investors carried a much higher risk and investment was discouraged.
Re: (Score:2)
So then you have some operations-level people - the folks actually charged with implementing how things are done - making decisions. Who are they? Well, as far as the public is concerned, nobody. Utterly faceless, no reputation and no known iden
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Remember the story of the scorpion and the dog? The dog offers to carry the scorpion across a river on his back and reasons with it not to sting him.
"If you sting me I will d
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is. It's very simplistic to consider a corporation no more than the sum of its parts. You're buying into the "bad apple" fallacy, whereby corporate misdeeds are blamed on one or two terrible individuals (who can then be fired and scapegoated). The thing is, if you look at enough of these, you find that the vast majority of corporate crimes against the community (as opposed to crimes against the corpora
Google is still a business (Score:3, Insightful)
The motto isn't "do no evil"! (Score:2)
If you're going to create a straw man, try to at least get the little facts straight before you put on the tinfoil...
-B
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know?
What comes to mind (Score:2)
Google + Gov't = EVIL (Score:1, Informative)
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like America Deceived (book) [iuniverse.com] from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amend
Re: (Score:2)
Also I don't see how your political rhetoric (which may or may not be true)is actually connected to the story, or to Google (outside of an unsupported allegation). I'm getting sick of people inserting their politics into every medium
It will always be a matter of trust (Score:1)
Google seems to be Fixing DoubleClick's security. (Score:1)
The policy now is relatively clear about the cookie opt-out only being a very partial tracking opt-out; they will still try to show you targeted ads even if you've opted out, although they still avoid explicitly admitting to doing IP-based tracking.
In other words, the DoubleClick opt-out system is still ineffective, but at least they admit it now.
Not lyin
Re:Google seems to be Fixing DoubleClick's securit (Score:1)
So I'd like to ask:
Nicole, why is DoubleClick's opt-out policy unclear as to whether IPs are used to deliver targeted ads to users who DO opt out?
Ever heard the phrase "agitate for change"...? (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking of finesse, I personally appreciate a more graceful and elegant solution to achieving goals. In fact, I'm curious to know if the _goals_ of Google are more subtle themselves than people tend to realize.
In counterpoint, I offer the current U.S. Administration which: 1) demonstrates little finesse, and 2) far less productivity than the costs merit.
So *that's* why I find quarters in the washer (Score:2)
On the finesse side, there *is* a lot about Google that is potentially subversive in a good way.
But I can't help but notice this story about Google promising Washington they'll be good (so please don't regulate us) on the same page as one about Comcast suddenly promising to be good when threatened by net-neutrality regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
- both companies are very different in character and past behavior
- Google is being proactive in the matter rather than responding to threats from D.C.
I'm still willing to bet that Google is working from more idealistic principles than most and, as such, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt way more than I'd give to Comcast or most other compa
Re: (Score:2)
Google is a bit like an Obama. Lots of falutin' rhetoric promising new horizons, but not on the scene long enough to be trusted to not "Be Evil" in the way that the bottom line ultimately demands. You want to hope, and hey that China thing, that DoubleClick thing, everybod
Do I lean left, right, or neither? (Score:2)
Google's and Obama's appeal to me is that they are willing to pursue the idealism when others are not. For me, that is an invaluable attribute for a leader. After years of cynicism, I've tempered my fears a bit to be hopeful again and I believe I can trust, not only in the possibilities that these two entities offer, but also in the consequences if they fail. As another player in these dramas, our societies have proven to have serious bite when people make mistakes.
Again, citing the e
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to pry it from my cold, dead -- oh wait, they're only like $30 from surlatable.com But I have to warn you, the resemblance to a big fat syringe is not without coincidence.
Hey I'm with you on not giving over totally to cynicism. I'll vote hope over known-quantity any day if hope looks like it has half a shot.
My thing is: I'll keep giving Google benefit of the doubt as a *consumer* while they deserve it, but as a *citizen* I still want effective privacy regulation, even if
Re: (Score:2)
And believe me, in these times advocating for privacy takes as much hope as lighting a candle in a hurricane. But I'll be damned if years down the road history looks back and says my generation gave up on individual freedom for all future generations without so much as a whimper.
Amen, er, hear hear, brother!
(OK, that's enough Americanos for today. I'm cutting me off.)
Now _that's_ something I want Google to solve -- how to deliver tasty coffee drinks via the Intertubes.
Protection racket (Score:3, Insightful)
They realize, just as Microsoft eventually did, that if you're a large profitable corporation that you better be sending your protection money to Washington D.C. Otherwise, armies of government lawyers and bureaucrats will be working to make life hell for you.
Re: (Score:1)
i seem to remember (Score:2)
It's not "Do No Evil" (Score:1)