Google Gives A Little, Very Little

Google and the great data gathering factory.
Google is apparently backing up again today announcing that they will cut back on how long the company keeps Web search histories of users from 2 years back to 18 months. Search information will become anonymous after the year and a half. I am not sure what how 6 months less time in the Google vaults could be anything to cheer about in regard to privacy issues but it is something. Google just seems to step on more and more toes in an almost effortless jaunt across the Web 2.0 landscape.

Why
In an article yesterday Paul Glazowski reflected on the Privacy International issue I reported on in this blog. Paul points out potently that Google users are not going to be exactly thrilled to find out their histories are saved for even ten minutes let alone 2 years. Here we have another situation where Google simply backs up after going too far. This is the same tactic being employed in then YouTube copyright cases.

In a letter to Google mentioned in Paul’s post Privacy International pretty much hammers Google with what appear to be legitimate issues in light of Google’s claims against the non-profit privacy organization. Essentially the letter from Simon Davies Director of Privacy International demands an apology from Google for trying to discredit the otherwise untarnished organization.

Who Do They Think They Are?
The latest news via the New York Times reveals Google’s intentions more clearly. Google says that it shares general information on search trends, but does not release this personal information outside the company. In my post yesterday I pointed out that THEY DON”T HAVE TO! Half of the advertising on the Web is filtered through Google one way or another. The same holds true for any manipulation or machinating where user preferences, trends or privacy might enter into the equation. Google went on thumbing their nose at the Web according to this NYT article.

“We believe we can still address our legitimate interests in security, innovation and antifraud efforts with this shorter period,” Peter Fleischer, Google’s global privacy counsel, wrote in the letter. He added that the company would “firmly reject” a retention period that was any shorter.

According to Google’s global privacy Czar Google could not look at other companies and find any clear privacy policies. This is tantamount to telling Google users that “no policy means we do what we want.” The absence of clear policies for the world’s most powerful Web entity should indicate the need to supply their users with one don’t you think? Google is open to dialogue according to Fleisher, but given the statement about shorter data holding, it sounds like doubletalk to me.

Conclusion
Google just announced today that they would be testing technology to recognize copyrighted video and audio in response (after months) to the Viacom and Premier League lawsuits. I just reported at Profy about the latest companies to jump on YouTube in the class action suit. This is all becoming so systematic and predictable and really sickening in my book. Google is stacking up like one of those bullies you have to stomp an apology out of when they go wrong. In fairness to them (why I do not know) the other big companies practice some of the same tactics and use people’s information. However, no other entity has nearly as much control over the data collected. Maybe 20 or 30 million users migrating somewhere else because they were not aware of Google’s practices would equate to a good “stomping”

Privacy, Google, Web 2.0 and You

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.