Monday, June 11, 2007

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.

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Testing Spinlets on My Blog

The following is a test of the emergency Spinlet system that has been in private beta testing for a while now. If this Twitter example shows up properly we will know that both Spinlets and Philbo have done good!

Now let's go and see if this great tool renders what it should have shall we? Okay that worked really well, now let's see if the Digg Spinlet does as well.

Friday, February 16, 2007

Where are we now?

Web 2 point what? In about 100 blog posts I have covered so many aspects for the "new web" that I think I have become disoriented. O'Reilly coined the phrase, probably invented most of it to promote a whole new breed of web ventures for all we know, and now we find ourselves surrounded by it!
So where does that leave us? I really want to know? Certainly we are somewhere past the 1990's, but where. If Sony came up with a whole series of new TV's and other gadgets, would we call that Sony 2.0? Maybe we should devise a new terminology to simply say "new" or improved or different than before.
Is the web different than before though? I am not so sure that it is people. I love the user generated stuff sure, but just how much of the web is user generated and is it any good for anything? I get this image of a sheep herder watching 1000 sheep scurry around in a pasture, knowing full well that they are about to be sheared, and telling them: "good sheep, keep going you are doing great!"
There is no discounting the tons of user created videos, blogs, chats, forums and endless arrays or creative license. However, if all this content just leads to more web content, what are we accomplishing? These are questions I want my readers to answer. I would like for people to think a little bit about this. It is okay if you just want to comment by giving me the finger to get rid of some adolescent angst, I don't mine. It is a blog after all, but just for once I would like to feel the presence of something more than an abbreviated wb, np, wtf, afk or other dehumanizing brevity of contact. Do you feel me folks?
Please have at it then :)