What do they want? This is perhaps the most revealing question any Internet user/consumer could ever ask. We all marvel and enjoy the great faculty that Web 2.0 platforms afford us, yet the ever present cloud of monetization looms over the whole infrastructure. The news that led me to this post is yet another finger pointed at Google, this time indicating practices no Web 2.0 user wants or needs.
Privacy International, a UK based activist group, released a report entitled: “Race to the Bottom – Privacy Ranking of Internet Service Companies” wherein Google rates last among 20 highlighted sites. According to a Reuters story via Yahoo! Google is described as having an entrenched hostility with regard to privacy. The report outlines a handful of specific concerns but is primarily focused on the growing concern in regard to Google’s dominance of the Web.
The Method
Privacy International performed this study of both Web 1.0 and 2.0 Internet companies in order to rank the best and worst performers with regard to their privacy practices. The analysis is based around 20 core principles that help rank the particular companies across the spectrum of search, email, e-commerce and social networking. The report was compiled from public sources (newspapers, blogs and etc.) and from company employees, technical analysis and interviews with company reps.
Say it Isn’t So
The details of this interim report are interesting if not totally conclusive to say the least. Without going into a quantitative analysis of my own, let me point out a simple fact that possibly lends credibility to this report. Even if Google did not share information with outside parties at this point, the inside track for sharing data within the Google virtual monopoly would be immense and counter to person privacy integrity for users. If Adsense, Doubleclick or other advertising dynamics are privy to your personal preferences and habits then we are all essentially being spammed in the most effective and Machiavellian way possible.
The use of Doubleclick’s Dynamic Advertising Reporting & Targeting (DART) is a borderline abuse of personal privacy given the breadth of Google’s reach. Simply put, Google no longer needs to share your information in order to manipulate you as a consumer for the can do it even more efficiently than the worst spammers. Would Google or any of these other entities take advantage of your information if they could?
The Good Guys
There are a few companies that get decent marks according to this report including; BBC.com, eBay Inc. and Last.fm, but even their track records are not pure as their rating is reflected as: “generally privacy aware but in need of improvement.” Microsoft was chastised for “serious lapses”, however most of this criticism resulted from serious past infractions. Google and the rest would certainly impose their unique brand of manipulation on companies they acquire, so looking for a real “good guy” in the online ad game might get harder as time goes on.
The Bad Guys
We used to view SEO companies who tried to manipulate the search engines as the bad guys, but what Google and the rest appear to be doing is not fighting manipulative SEO practices as much as “supplanting” them. The simplicity or this tactic is rather amazing if you think about it, just get rid of competing ads so that you can have your own advertising “cowboys” herd the huddled masses to the products and sites you get money from. So where is your privacy in all this high tech digital manipulation? In this writer’s opinion, you don’t have any.
Sleeping With the Fishes
The old saying is: “If it smells like a fish then if probably is one.” Just take a look at the Doubleclick website; it looks like an SEO vampire site with its fangs directly into the neck of every consumer. The wording, charts, data and tempo of the whole site leave little room for doubt as to what the goal is. The most intriguing (and scary) thing on Doubleclick is a video by Personal Life Media’s CEO Susan Bratton. Susan “power” sweet talks potential clients into some kind of Ivy League reworking of a used car sales pitch. I don’t think I have ever heard the term “beautifully leveraged” when referring to marketers taking advantage of a medium. The only flaw in this well scripted video is the last glances on each segment (spooky) by Susan and her unavoidable tendency to show off her 3 (ok 5 maybe) carat diamond ring. The whole video is reminiscent of the dressing room scene in The Devils Advocate (spooky).
Conclusion
I know some of you are thinking: “What has this got to do with me?” Well, I just don’t like the idea of people walking around thinking they are safe or are being treated fairly when nothing could be further from the truth. There is no definitive proof that Google or any of these other companies are misusing personal information, but the symbolic, logical and circumstantial evidence is all around. Vampires and other predators are no less obtrusive if they take blood directly from their victims or from the blood bank. From the craps table in Vegas to the Ford dealership in your home town and across Personal Life’s “Expanded Lovemaking” series, these bozos have us covered. I don’t like the insult, the invasion of my space nor do many of our readers I expect.
Fig. 1.1 mashup from Doubleclick and Personal Life.
4 comments:
Dear Phil-
I currently am writing a series on personal privacy. I am kind of a privacy advocate among other things.
Check it out at http://sovereign-rights.blogspot.com
digitalnomad
WOW, who knew! It's kind of frightening, I use google everyday.
It can be distressing to realize that your online life is subject to harvesting, measuring and tracking -- and advertising. But isn't that true of the rest of your life? When you go to pay at the cashier, they're not asking you your ZIP code because they want to send you a postcard -- they're asking so that they may more readily market to you. The grocery store rewards card is not provided to you so that beets can be cheaper or checkout made easier -- it's so that the grocery store can stock its shelves with foods that you and your neighbors will buy. Frequent flyer miles aren't offered out of the goodness of airlines' hearts; they're offered to buy your loyalty. Surveys (unless made for political purposes) are usually undertaken to understand marketing trends. Successful companies track everything. And if they don't, they're not successful for very long.
It should be no great shock that the very currency of the Internet -- its backbone, its lifeblood, its very soul -- is being labeled, harvested, bagged and tagged by companies in new and different ways every day. If consumers don't want this to happen, they may not have too many choices in the matter. This great invention comes at a price. And with every post, every click, every lingering moment, we pay for it. Don't like it? Propose a new model for the 'net. It may eventually catch on. But until it does, remember that online privacy is far from perfect and there's plenty of cause for believing that any obtainable information, no matter what it is or how esoteric it may seem, is being sliced and diced so that it can be better understood by someone or someones out to make a buck.
I agree - the Doubleclick video is very creepy. However, it's always been obvious that Susan Bratton can't stand it when she's not the center of attention. Rather pathetic - I wouldn't pay much attention to it.
Post a Comment