[Commons-Law] What Google Should Roll Out Next: A Privacy Upgrade - NYTIMES
Via: Hasit seth
===== Comment =====
Software's future is going to be a networked and hosted service more
than standalone PC based software. This is going to raise a
phenomenal number of issues and of course means a virtual end of
"software development" as it is known today - open or closed source.
Here is a piece about how Google's massive database of personalized
and trackable information is a sitting target that not many have
notice.
Cheers,
Hasit
==================
NY TIMES - Editorial Observer
What Google Should Roll Out Next: A Privacy Upgrade
By ADAM COHEN
Published: November 28, 2005
At a North Carolina strangulation-murder trial this month, prosecutors
announced an unusual piece of evidence: Google searches allegedly done
by the defendant that included the words "neck" and "snap." The data
were taken from the defendant's computer, prosecutors say. But it
might have come directly from Google, which - unbeknownst to many
users - keeps records of every search on its site, in ways that can be
traced back to individuals.
Google is rolling out revolutionary new features at a blistering rate,
most recently Google Base, which could evolve into a classified ad
service, and the Google Book Search Library Project, which aims to put
a vast number of books online. Google's stock recently soared past
$400 a share, putting its market capitalization ahead of Time Warner
and Gannett combined, and the personal fortunes of its founders,
Sergey Brin and Larry Page, above $14 billion.
Google is the subject of a new book, "The Google Story," by David Vise
and Mark Malseed, that tracks the company's rise from a student
project at Stanford through its success in outmaneuvering Microsoft,
Yahoo, AOL and other behemoths for Internet dominance. Google has long
presented itself as the anti-Microsoft, a company that the digerati
regard as a force for good in the technology world.
In many ways, it has lived up to that reputation. But if it wants to
hold on to its corporate halo, Google should do a better job of
including users in decisions about how their personal information is
collected, stored, and shared.
Google has succeeded so extraordinarily because its founders were able
to see the future of the Internet more clearly than the rest of
Silicon Valley. At a time when "Web portals" - sites that directed
users to online services - were seen as the future, Mr. Brin and Mr.
Page were convinced Internet searches would be pivotal. They developed
technology that was far better than other search engines at sifting
through the galaxy of information online. They slapped a typo of a
name on their project - a misspelling of "googol," the number
represented by a 1 followed by 100 zeroes - got venture capital, and
quickly built a company.
Mr. Brin and Mr. Page believed companies should not be able to get
better placement on the results page by paying money, something their
competitors allowed. Google strictly separated out "sponsored"
results, or ads, from search results, and gave up untold millions of
dollars in revenue by keeping Google's home page ad free. The company
has taken other idealistic positions over its short lifetime,
including conducting its initial public offering by a "Dutch auction,"
so Wall Street would not control it.
Google operates according to two core principles. One is its mission
"to organize the world's information and make it universally
accessible and useful." The other is its motto, "Don't be evil," which
Mr. Brin and Mr. Page take so seriously that they included it in a
Securities and Exchange Commission filing. As Google grows and spreads
into new areas, these two principles are turning out to be in tension.
Google's book search, for example, aims to make books universally
accessible in a way some authors regard as dismissive of their rights
and illegal.
The biggest area where Google's principles are likely to conflict is
privacy. Google has been aggressive about collecting information about
its users' activities online. It stores their search data, possibly
forever, and puts "cookies" on their computers that make it possible
to track those searches in a personally identifiable way - cookies
that do not expire until 2038. Its e-mail system, Gmail, scans the
content of e-mail messages so relevant ads can be posted. Google's
written privacy policy reserves the right to pool what it learns about
users from their searches with what it learns from their e-mail
messages, though Google says it won't do so. It also warns that users'
personal information may be processed on computers located in other
countries.
The government can gain access to Google's data storehouse simply by
presenting a valid warrant or subpoena. Under the Patriot Act, Google
may not be able to tell users when it hands over their searches or
e-mail messages. If the federal government announced plans to directly
collect the sort of data Google does, there would be an uproar - in
fact there was in 2003, when the Pentagon announced its Total
Information Awareness program, which was quickly shut down.
In the early days of the Internet, privacy advocates argued that data
should be collected on individuals only if they affirmatively agreed.
But businesses like Google have largely succeeded in reversing the
presumption. There is a privacy policy on the site, but many people
don't read privacy policies. It is hard to believe most Google users
know they have a cookie that expires in 2038, or have thought much
about the government's ability to read their search history and stored
e-mail messages without them knowing it.
Google says it needs the data it keeps to improve its technology, but
it is doubtful it needs so much personally identifiable information.
Of course, this sort of data is enormously valuable for marketing. The
whole idea of "Don't be evil," though, is resisting lucrative business
opportunities when they are wrong. Google should develop an
overarching privacy theory that is as bold as its mission to make the
world's information accessible - one that can become a model for the
online world. Google is not necessarily worse than other Internet
companies when it comes to privacy. But it should be doing better.
(c) Acknowledged.
===== Comment =====
Software's future is going to be a networked and hosted service more
than standalone PC based software. This is going to raise a
phenomenal number of issues and of course means a virtual end of
"software development" as it is known today - open or closed source.
Here is a piece about how Google's massive database of personalized
and trackable information is a sitting target that not many have
notice.
Cheers,
Hasit
==================
NY TIMES - Editorial Observer
What Google Should Roll Out Next: A Privacy Upgrade
By ADAM COHEN
Published: November 28, 2005
At a North Carolina strangulation-murder trial this month, prosecutors
announced an unusual piece of evidence: Google searches allegedly done
by the defendant that included the words "neck" and "snap." The data
were taken from the defendant's computer, prosecutors say. But it
might have come directly from Google, which - unbeknownst to many
users - keeps records of every search on its site, in ways that can be
traced back to individuals.
Google is rolling out revolutionary new features at a blistering rate,
most recently Google Base, which could evolve into a classified ad
service, and the Google Book Search Library Project, which aims to put
a vast number of books online. Google's stock recently soared past
$400 a share, putting its market capitalization ahead of Time Warner
and Gannett combined, and the personal fortunes of its founders,
Sergey Brin and Larry Page, above $14 billion.
Google is the subject of a new book, "The Google Story," by David Vise
and Mark Malseed, that tracks the company's rise from a student
project at Stanford through its success in outmaneuvering Microsoft,
Yahoo, AOL and other behemoths for Internet dominance. Google has long
presented itself as the anti-Microsoft, a company that the digerati
regard as a force for good in the technology world.
In many ways, it has lived up to that reputation. But if it wants to
hold on to its corporate halo, Google should do a better job of
including users in decisions about how their personal information is
collected, stored, and shared.
Google has succeeded so extraordinarily because its founders were able
to see the future of the Internet more clearly than the rest of
Silicon Valley. At a time when "Web portals" - sites that directed
users to online services - were seen as the future, Mr. Brin and Mr.
Page were convinced Internet searches would be pivotal. They developed
technology that was far better than other search engines at sifting
through the galaxy of information online. They slapped a typo of a
name on their project - a misspelling of "googol," the number
represented by a 1 followed by 100 zeroes - got venture capital, and
quickly built a company.
Mr. Brin and Mr. Page believed companies should not be able to get
better placement on the results page by paying money, something their
competitors allowed. Google strictly separated out "sponsored"
results, or ads, from search results, and gave up untold millions of
dollars in revenue by keeping Google's home page ad free. The company
has taken other idealistic positions over its short lifetime,
including conducting its initial public offering by a "Dutch auction,"
so Wall Street would not control it.
Google operates according to two core principles. One is its mission
"to organize the world's information and make it universally
accessible and useful." The other is its motto, "Don't be evil," which
Mr. Brin and Mr. Page take so seriously that they included it in a
Securities and Exchange Commission filing. As Google grows and spreads
into new areas, these two principles are turning out to be in tension.
Google's book search, for example, aims to make books universally
accessible in a way some authors regard as dismissive of their rights
and illegal.
The biggest area where Google's principles are likely to conflict is
privacy. Google has been aggressive about collecting information about
its users' activities online. It stores their search data, possibly
forever, and puts "cookies" on their computers that make it possible
to track those searches in a personally identifiable way - cookies
that do not expire until 2038. Its e-mail system, Gmail, scans the
content of e-mail messages so relevant ads can be posted. Google's
written privacy policy reserves the right to pool what it learns about
users from their searches with what it learns from their e-mail
messages, though Google says it won't do so. It also warns that users'
personal information may be processed on computers located in other
countries.
The government can gain access to Google's data storehouse simply by
presenting a valid warrant or subpoena. Under the Patriot Act, Google
may not be able to tell users when it hands over their searches or
e-mail messages. If the federal government announced plans to directly
collect the sort of data Google does, there would be an uproar - in
fact there was in 2003, when the Pentagon announced its Total
Information Awareness program, which was quickly shut down.
In the early days of the Internet, privacy advocates argued that data
should be collected on individuals only if they affirmatively agreed.
But businesses like Google have largely succeeded in reversing the
presumption. There is a privacy policy on the site, but many people
don't read privacy policies. It is hard to believe most Google users
know they have a cookie that expires in 2038, or have thought much
about the government's ability to read their search history and stored
e-mail messages without them knowing it.
Google says it needs the data it keeps to improve its technology, but
it is doubtful it needs so much personally identifiable information.
Of course, this sort of data is enormously valuable for marketing. The
whole idea of "Don't be evil," though, is resisting lucrative business
opportunities when they are wrong. Google should develop an
overarching privacy theory that is as bold as its mission to make the
world's information accessible - one that can become a model for the
online world. Google is not necessarily worse than other Internet
companies when it comes to privacy. But it should be doing better.
(c) Acknowledged.
comments
No new comments allowed (anymore) on this post.