Google - Privacy and other issues

[bdw]

The US government filed more than twice as many demands for data about Google users than any other other country in the past six months, according to figures the search behemoth supplied Monday. What's more, according to the Google Transparency Report, Google fully or partially complied with the US demands in 94 percent of the cases, a rate that was higher than responses to any other government.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/27/google_user_data_subpoenas/

.

 

[MarketingMad]

Hi everyone... I have heard that Google has supposedly started a PR update on 27/06/11. I was just wondering whether anyone knows how long it should take roughly for a PR update to be completed?

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[bdw]

You are a bit off topic. This is being discussed elsewhere.

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=214303&highlight=PR+update

.

 

[MarketingMad]

Thanks for the link...

 

[MarketingMad]

Thanks for the link.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Keep it up BDW. This a valuable, if underrated thread.

I hope you have all your valuable research backed up somewhere.

 

[bdw]

Google Inc. must face a lawsuit claiming its data collection using Wi-Fi networks for its Street View program, which allows users see photographs of roadsides, violates wiretapping laws, a judge said.

The Mountain View, California-based company argued it couldn’t be found liable for federal wiretapping violations because the Wi-Fi broadcasts were unencrypted and “readily accessible” to the general public.

Sounds a bit like looking through someone's window at their desk and copying personal information from a document laying there and saying, "Don't blame me it was readily accessible"? :|

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...on-claims.html


.

 

[bdw]

"(Reuters) - Google faces a total of nine antitrust complaints which EU regulators are now investigating, two sources said on Tuesday, as rivals ramped up the pressure on the world No. 1 search engine. The European Commission has up to now only confirmed four cases against Google. The addition of fresh complaints could broaden the EU watchdog's ongoing probe and pile pressure on the company to strike a settlement."


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/02/us-eu-google-idUSTRE77131I20110802

.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/08/google_oracle_java/

Google do not seem such a nice company as they pretend............

 

[bdw]

A good glimpse of the inside ... interesting.

.

 

[bdw]

"Google's privacy policy has been gently applauded by Information Commissioner Christopher Graham, who came under sharp criticism for his initial "lily-livered" handling of the company's Street View Wi-Fi data-slurping operation."

Now only a cynic would say that this endorsement was in any way connected to this ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/nov/25/conservatives.media


.

 

[bdw]

Regulators will announce Wednesday that Google will pay $500 million to settle government charges that it has illegally shown ads for online pharmacies that operate outside the law, according to two people briefed on the investigation.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/google-reaches-500-million-settlement-with-government/

Quite a precedent being set here.

.

 

[bdw]

NOW SEEKING TO TAKE OVER FLIGHT BOOKING SITES
This is the next step in their quest for total domination of the Internet.

http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=EBBE741E-1A64-6A71-CE13777A82D219EA

When this kicks in how many people involved in the online travel industry will lose their jobs?


Here's the Register's take on this...

But this attitude highlights Google's ability to use its search engine monopoly as a way of expanding into vertical markets – a phenomenon at the heart of the ongoing antitrust investigations into the company's search and ad practices.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/14/google_launches_flight_search/

.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Dear Brian

And also

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/0..._claims_google_censored_his_personal_website/

 

[bdw]

Interesting!

Actually that could be a significant development. Whether or not you agree with Brian Souter's philosophies he should not be censored out of G's results and it does look like that has happened.

He may not be on Google's level in a business sense but he is a very powerful businessman and capable of generating a lot of adverse publicity for Google on this one.

.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

http://www.openbookalliance.org/2011/09/adventures-in-google’s-audacity/

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...hotographers-sue-over-google-book-search.html

Google should change their motto to "The evil Empire"

 

[Deleted member 59730]

http://memeburn.com/2011/08/is-quality-content-a-google-red-herring-analysis

 

[RevaxMedia]

grave digging?

 

[bdw]

“Google is a great American success story, but its size, position and power in the marketplace have raised concerns about its business practices, and raised the question of what responsibilities come with that power,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, who is a member of the antitrust subcommittee and who as the attorney general of Connecticut played a leading role among the states that sued Microsoft"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/technology/googles-to-face-congressional-antitrust-hearing.html

 

[bdw]

http://www.fairsearch.org/general/lee-fears-confirmed-after-schmidt-testimony/

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt stumbled over the Committee’s questions, refusing to give a clear answer. After listening to Schmidt’s evasive responses, Senator Lee was deeply troubled, saying, “some of my fears I have to say, have been confirmed as a result of our conversation.”

“seems to me to leverage Google’s primary search dominance, to give its own secondary services in listings an unnatural and extraordinary advantage. No other specialized business or search site can hope to compete on anything close to a level playing field when Google uses its significant market power to disadvantage online competitor, [creating a] clear and inherent conflict of interest.”

Looks like the penny is beginning to drop with the authorities?

.

 

[bdw]

Have a look at this brief presentation - it is very interesting!

http://www.fairsearch.org/presentations/the-google-problem/



.

 

[ps_leccy]

Have a look at this brief presentation - it is very interesting!

http://www.fairsearch.org/presentations/the-google-problem/



.

Strikes me as rather tin foil hat - quotes taken out of context being used to scare.

Now of course I'm not denying there is a large capacity for 'wrong-doing' in google. But compared to many companies, charities and governments; so far they have been fairly lacking in malevolence, I'd say.

ANYWHERE in our environment where money's involved, we have to be careful.
Supermarkets will carefully calculate where to place the items that will make them the most profit, regardless of which you actually want.
Charities will employ marketing companies to workout how to get you to give them money when you didn't care about their cause before.
Government departments will (I'm looking at you, DVLA) will try and take you to court to get money out of you, then capitulate at the last minute if they realise you know what you're doing.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be 'the opposition' poking at google.
But I don't see any other way it could be, really.

 

[bdw]

Supermarkets and charities do not have the same "gen" on you that Google has.

.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Now of course I'm not denying there is a large capacity for 'wrong-doing' in google. But compared to many companies, charities and governments; so far they have been fairly lacking in malevolence, I'd say.
.

Read the Book 'Free Ride' by Robert Levine and then come back and say that.

(And just why papers like the Guardian and the Independent asked Freetards to review the book must be coincidental. )

 

[ps_leccy]

Supermarkets can have a hell of a lot of information on you if you use their products (loyalty card, or even more so, a credit card.)
Similarly, I'm sure charities by all sorts of data which they use to target their marketing campaigns.

(And just why papers like the Guardian and the Independent asked Freetards to review the book must be coincidental. )

I've long believed that the 'old school' media needs to wake up and stop burying their head in the sand; working with the way consumers want to work, rather than against them*. I know enough people who work in such industry to know that this view is also shared in them for many people as well, even if those at the top are still firmly stuck in the sand.

In the end, if you don't want google to have data about you, you can prevent a large amount of it. Of course, anyone living a reasonable 'normal' life in the UK is always going to have some of their data public whatever they do, using the internet or not.

 

[bdw]

Actually I think you are burying your head in the sand on this one.

.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Strikes me as rather tin foil hat - quotes taken out of context being used to scare.

I agree.

I really don't get it. If someone doesn't trust google, why don't they just stop using it?

Steve

 

[ps_leccy]

The world is changing and people are certainly becoming 'lazier' in how they approach media.

For some specific companies in 'traditional media' they are a lot less worried about 'pirating' because they make the big money from merchandising, live performances etc; which freely available media can actually help in some cases.

It's unfortunate that a lot of the new online services charge off-line prices for restricted content - they are making big bucks (and I appreciate trying to keep traditional media making some money), but not passing the savings on to the consumer.

 

[ps_leccy]

I really don't get it. If someone doesn't trust google, why don't they just stop using it?

It does take a bit of hassle to stop a company like google tracking you - because they have adverts on so many websites, you need to block all of the adverts etc.
Even then, they may still be able to get something; however unless you have a google account etc, we're just talking 'traces' with no real connection to you as a person.
Of course with information they may own through other parts of the company there may well be the possibility to connect the dots. Whether they will or not is another matter.

Just talking to a friend about the new time line feature on facebook.
Facebook, personally, I'd have thought, is something to worry about a fair bit more.
But again, they are there to make money from advertising mostly.
So the likely worst problems to arise is that we got more targeted adverts. Of course, in some cases I'm sure this could lead to embarrassment, etc when a partner/friend realises the adverts are targeted .

 

[directmarketingadvice]

It does take a bit of hassle to stop a company like google tracking you - because they have adverts on so many websites, you need to block all of the adverts etc.

OK, no problem, then.

Even then, they may still be able to get something; however unless you have a google account etc, we're just talking 'traces' with no real connection to you as a person.

So nothing to worry about.

Of course with information they may own through other parts of the company there may well be the possibility to connect the dots. Whether they will or not is another matter.

Which "other parts of the company"? If you're not using google - meaning the whole company - and you've opted out of personalised ads, I don't see how they're going to "get you".

Just talking to a friend about the new time line feature on facebook.

Which is a totally different thing.

Steve

 

[Deleted member 59730]

For some specific companies in 'traditional media' they are a lot less worried about 'pirating' because they make the big money from merchandising, live performances etc; which freely available media can actually help in some cases..

Can you name one clear cut piece of long term research that proves this tired mantra?

Read the book by Robert Levine. He gives dozens of examples which disprove it backed up by solid research.

 

[bdw]

I really don't get it.

Don't worry, you are not alone but the penny will drop eventually. There are so many otherwise intelligent people who seem unable to see what is going on here. It's strange - but then perhaps some are just disagreeing for the sake of it?

It would be nice to see some evidence that Google's intent is anything other than Internet domination.


.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Don't worry, you are not alone

Taking the first half of one of my sentences and then ignoring the more important half is a good example of "taking something out of context".

Steve

 

[ps_leccy]

Which "other parts of the company"? If you're not using google - meaning the whole company - and you've opted out of personalised ads, I don't see how they're going to "get you".

Such as the recently bought travel sites, as discussed in one of the links.

Which is a totally different thing.

Not as different as you might think.
http://nikcub-static.appspot.com/logging-out-of-facebook-is-not-enough


I'm sure google's intent is internet domination.
Just as Coke's is refreshment domination and Colgate's is tooth care domination. I expect any world leading company is looking for domination in their field.
I don't think this makes google any worse than others.

Personally for me, the worst thing I think google has done recently was hiding wikileaks at the bequest of the US government. Not the actual act so much, but the general symbolism of it.

atmosbob:
No, it's not something I've researched. But this really does come from 'the horses mouth'; of course, conveniently enough; I can't disclose my sources.

 

[MASSEY]

I think it is naive for people to not be concerned with how much information google has on people. With all the information they have on me some one from google could pretend to be me...

How safe is all this data from hackers? How are they using this data? What will they do with it all in the future?

There is also the fact they are abusing their status as a company holding the monopoly, there are strict rules in place for companies that dominate markets which don't seem to be applied properly here.

Here we have a search engine hell bent on pushing all its own products onto page one and confusing users who struggle more and more to tell the intent of the hyperlinks on the page infront of them.

What gets my back up is how they have started offering "free advice" to people with websites. They hold little seminars informing people how to make a great website for all the "FREE" traffic they could be getting. They know that unless thesepeople are willing to invest heavily they wont get free traffic so there is more chance they will end up roping people into adwords. Yet the average public can't see this.

Are they scum? Kind of, but they have increased my turnover greatly over the last 18 months so it is a love hate relationship for me personally

 

[bdw]

Taking the first half of one of my sentences and then ignoring the more important half is a good example of "taking something out of context".

First half? Actually I quoted your full sentence. I did not selectively edit it but it makes little difference to my point ... but with regard to your next sentence.

If someone doesn't trust google, why don't they just stop using it?

The point is that the vast majority of Google users have no idea what they are doing. They are not even aware that there are any trust issues on the table.

Google of course knows this.

.

 

[bdw]

Looks like they may have to be a bit more transparent and accountable with their taxes.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/13/google_irs_audit/

 

[bdw]

:| What? You are going to have to run that past me again.

.

 

[kevin555]

I think the intent of this post was to make people aware that one business having so much control of information is not a good thing.

In that I totally agree. It is a monopoly of information, a modern equivalent of any previous monopoly of it's day.

Standard Oil was so big it was controlling the markets so it was broken up.

Google is now too big in that it is able one day to put you at No.1 and then the next day wipe you off.

The downside is that this dominance creates instability in an economy. Anyone that relies on google traffic will come a cropper. But what can a business do? If they work at getting to No.1 and see sales increase they will need to take on staff. Sales get wiped out, sack all the staff. Then take them on again in 2 months??

If you had 10 search engines each giving a reasonable level of traffic - both through PPC and SEO then it would provide stability. 1 or 2 go belly up gives you time to change. Allowing business to build, grow and others who are not so relevant die off but at a rate of change that is controlled by the overall economy and not by one single business.

So, google dominance is not good. Just as any dominance in any market eventually leads to problems. It's not anti-google just anti-monopoly.

 

[movietub]

I think the intent of this post was to make people aware that one business having so much control of information is not a good thing.

In that I totally agree. It is a monopoly of information, a modern equivalent of any previous monopoly of it's day.

Standard Oil was so big it was controlling the markets so it was broken up.

Much of this is true, Google are to big to be conventionally acceptable. Competition laws in theory make it impossible for this to happen and continue to happen legally. However, as Google is global and different laws apply, and the the data generated by Google will in most cases come from other regions with different laws, it's all very complicated.

And is it actually wrong? Conventionally we say yes. But as I keep saying, Google, amongst its other activities, has photographed the entire planet (just about) at street level and created the ultimate map of our world. They couldn't do this without their scale. Likewise had they not had the global resource of information to source, the internet would have developed a little more slowly. Normally competition speeds up the rate of development, but with data it is a little different. It was Google's massive leaps forward in search technology that bought the masses an internet they could use in a human way, without having to 'think like a computer' every time they searched.

Google is now too big in that it is able one day to put you at No.1 and then the next day wipe you off.

The downside is that this dominance creates instability in an economy. Anyone that relies on google traffic will come a cropper. But what can a business do? If they work at getting to No.1 and see sales increase they will need to take on staff. Sales get wiped out, sack all the staff. Then take them on again in 2 months??

If you had 10 search engines each giving a reasonable level of traffic - both through PPC and SEO then it would provide stability. 1 or 2 go belly up gives you time to change. Allowing business to build, grow and others who are not so relevant die off but at a rate of change that is controlled by the overall economy and not by one single business.

So, google dominance is not good. Just as any dominance in any market eventually leads to problems. It's not anti-google just anti-monopoly.

Yes if you rely on Google giving your site the no1 spot then you are at risk. But the fact is that most people aim for and achieve this number one spot by employing SEO's so undermine Google at a technical level. Google just wants to display the most useful page. To achieve that it uses complex algorithms to determine quality and relevance of content. Obviously over time, trial and error it is possible to uncover certain characteristics of these algorithms and exploit them to give a site a boost. Beyond general good content, this is what technical SEO is - an attempt to present Google with something that looks better than the competitions offering, irrespective of whether it necessarily is. Then Google makes small change to improve part of that algorithm, and the site loses rankings. This is much more likely to effect a site that attempts to undermine Google ranking on a technical level than one which relies primarily on quality of content and popularity in it's sector.

My point is, the people that cry and complain more often than not are only losing something they acquired by using taking advantage of a Google weakness in the first place.

It doesn't matter how massive Google get, one thing you can be assured of is that they will always want to return the most useful, genuine results for a user's query. They will always seek ways to make the algorithms they use more accurate and less open to manipulation. So what you get is a more and more honest internet.