Slashdot Log In
Google Attempts to Allay US Privacy Fears
Posted by
Zonk
on Thursday March 27, @10:04AM
from the hard-to-do-when-you're-everywhere dept.
from the hard-to-do-when-you're-everywhere dept.
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?"
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: EFF Warns Not to Use Google Desktop 562 comments
neelm writes "The EFF is asking users not to use the new version of Google Desktop that has a 'search across computers' option. The option will store copies of documents on your hard drive on Google servers, where the government or anyone who wants to may subpoena (i.e. no search warrants) the information. Google says it is not yet scanning the files for advertising, but it hasn't ruled out the possibility."
[+]
Google buys DoubleClick for $3.1 Billion 351 comments
marvinalone writes "The New York Times reports that Google has purchased DoubleClick. That seems to be the conclusion to the speculation we've talked about earlier. From the article: 'Google reached an agreement today to acquire DoubleClick, the online advertising company, from two private equity firms for $3.1 billion in cash, the companies announced, an amount that was almost double the $1.65 billion in stock that Google paid for YouTube late last year.'"
[+]
Politics: FTC Investigating Google-DoubleClick Deal 81 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is covering FTC interest in Google's purchase of the DoubleClick service. The investigation is in response to privacy group concerns over the amount of information Google will have available to it via its ad service and DoubleClick. Between a few days and a week from now the FTC should either declare the all clear, or elevate the process to a 'second request' stage. That would indicate more serious issues the federal body has an interest in. Google stated it was confident the purchase would hold up under scrutiny. 'In the complaint, the groups noted that Google collects the search histories of its users, while DoubleClick tracks what Web sites people visit. The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world.'"
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Google helps ... (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words... google is going to 'do no evil'
Re:Google helps ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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:3, Insightful)
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
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 sta
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.
opt-in (Score:2, Interesting)
Contrast to Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Google is still a business (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
As evil as they are/will be (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, Google doesn't want competition!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Their PR people are touting "No Evil" as the company aggressively expands their monopoly. Don't pee do
Re:I have a question (Score:5, Insightful)