Google clarifies privacy policy
Google has begun to offer videos, ? la Common Craft, to explain their privacy policy. In this first one, Maile Ohye, a senior support engineer with Google, explains what information Google collects and how this information gets anonymized. Assuming no prior knowledge on behalf of the audience, Maile discusses IP addresses, cookies and server logs.
Essentially, Maile says that they only collect information needed to deliver better service, and that none of the information that they collect could be used to identify you personally (it could be your spouse or your kids).
I think this video and the promised series serve a valuable function, namely that of increasing transparency, but I’ve got two questions after watching:
- What do you think of their explanation? Do you think they are accurately portraying the privacy picture?
- What additional information would you like to see Google supply in order to convey a complete message?
Thanks to Internet Marketing Monitor for being the first place I saw this video.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:53 am
This is an excellent video. It is very slick. It appears to address privacy concerns and then deftly sidesteps the actual issue, misleading viewers into a false sense of security. The video distracts the attention of the viewer to focus on the IP address and the cookies. The video gives scant attention to the key important fact that Google accumulates your search history.
Search history allows Google build a personal profile of who you are, that is much more revealing than an address or phone number. Identity cards, phone numbers and addresses are known as \’thin identity\’ layers ie they contain identifying information but reveal little about you personally. The profile that Google builds up is a fat layer in that it reveals a lot about you personally.
It begs the question why do they avoid the key privacy issue in their video? Is this action deliberate and intentional? If so what does it reveal?
It\’d be interesting to have an qualified analyst enumerate the rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies they set up throughout the video to mislead the viewer in such a slick way.
August 10th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Now, first of all, Google is a private company, and their search engine is also a private intellectual property that belongs to Google and their shareholders and not the users of Google of the US government. As long as they don’t break any law relating to privacy issues, they are free to do with any data that their system collects. If users don’t like Google, they simply can bugger off to somewhere else, such as Yahoo or Microsoft and use those search engines.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
That’s be cool. I’d love to see a informational vid from Google like that! Even better, what about a less stage managed format, something like an impromtu press conference in which they seek to communciate the basic truths spoken by Falafulu Fisi in the comments above.
Imagine:
“Hi. We are Google. We would like to address the concerns that SOME people have raised about OUR attitude to YOUR privacy.
-Let us begin by saying: ‘See if we care. We are a private company.’
-Let us continue by saying, and you can quote us on this, ‘If you don’t like our attitude why don’t you bugger off and use someone else’s service. Like Yahoo or Microsoft for instance.’
-Listen up people. Whine all you like. Its just the ways things are. Your concerns are important to us but we are big and powerful and you will always be weak and small so long as you feel there is no real alternatives out there. Its just the way it is.
-In any case we are not doing anything that is technically illegal anyway. At least not within the legislation as it currently stands.-Yes. the EU did look at what we were doing and create new legislation to protecting consumers privacy and forced us to change policy. But that was only a minor setback. We implemented it. We were glad to *cough*
-In any case, we don’t know what is the problem with you people. We are a very big private company. As such we understand the value of privacy. But you have to admit our privacy has got to be more important than yours. I mean, what could you possibly have to hide? We’ve got a lot to hide, but that’s because we are big and powerful.
-Ah look, I’m getting tired of this. Enron and its ilk were different *kinds* of companies. They didn’t have “Don’t be evil” as their motto y’know! It basically comes down to a matter of trust. You can trust us. You do trust us right?
-SETTLE DOWN! I’m REALLY getting tired of this. I have enough on my plate answering to our shareholders. And let me tell you when it comes to those guys. All they are concerned with is profit.
-In fact, the only way I can interest them in the subject of privacy is to talk about how we can make it *look* like we give a damn.
So. Any questions?
August 12th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
NiaLLLarkin , you must be one of those who want to tell other people how to run their lives,heh? How would you feel if I turned up at your house (property) and demand that you paint it with a different color of my choosing (not yours), since I simply don’t like its look? Look, it is none of my business to tell you what you can or can’t do with your property and it is no different to Google or Microsoft, unless you don’t understand the meaning of private property rights here? If you don’t understand what it means, then perhaps you can tell me who owns Google? Oh, you’re not going to say that it is owned by the government that you\’re paying tax to, in which some of that tax goes to fund Google? Google doesn’t fund its business from a single cent from you, your government or your mum & dad, unless you’re all shareholders. Whoever’s got Google shares has a legitimate say in Google’s business, not you nor me. Your right to someone’s property only extends as far to your family members such as your brother or mum & dad, in which you have a legitimate claim to what is theirs, but Google, no, I am afraid that Google is not owned by your family(unless you’re all shareholders) so that you crybaby about them when they (Google) use their property (collected) for their daily legitimate business.
you said…
[All they are concerned with is profit.]
Exactly. That is what businesses are for. They are there in the first place to make a profit. Perhaps , you might want to ask Kaila, the whole purpose of vortexDNA business. Are they (vortexDNA) in business to make a profit or they just simply want to make friends with other bloggers, commenters and acting as Santa Claus by giving away free copies of their software and not charge for it. NiaLLLarkin, are you living in the 21st century or are you still stuck in the mentality of the 18th century? What is yours is yours and what is Google\’s is Google\’s, and you should keep your nose out of other people\’s property, because in fact, you don\’t want anyone to tell you what you can or can\’t do with your own property.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Falafulu, you must be one of those people who do not want our society to regulate what does and does not constitute acceptable behaviour. How would you feel if you where a crack dealer in a playground and I told you that you should not sell your crack here? Its one of my business to tell you what you can and cant do with your drugs. unless you don?t understand the meaning of private property rights here? If you don?t understand what it means, then perhaps you can tell me who owns the Drugs? Oh, you?re not going to say that they owned by the government that you?re paying tax to, in which some of that tax goes to fund the purchase of the Drugs? Dealers dont buy their drugs with a single cent from you, your government or your mum & dad, unless you?re all shareholders. Whoever?s got the dealers shares has a legitimate say in the dealers?s business, not you nor me. Your right to someone?s property only extends as far to your family members such as your brother or mum & dad, in which you have a legitimate claim to what is theirs, but the dug dealers crack?, no, I am afraid that the crack is not owned by your family(unless you\\?re all shareholders) so that you crybaby about them when they (the dealers) use their property (collected) for their daily legitimate business.
August 12th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Sean said…
[Falafulu, you must be one of those people who do not want our society to regulate what does and does not constitute acceptable behaviour.]
No, thanks. I don’t want to live in a society, where the states put in legislation to nanny.
Sean said…
[How would you feel if you where a crack dealer in a playground and I told you that you should not sell your crack here?]
Sean, your example here is completely irrelevant and not worth responding to. Selling crack is illegal, period. Using my own data such as banking customer data, Google search data, business CRM data, etc,etc,… for my own legitimate daily business is different. The banks are already using customer transaction data for marketing purposes, you’re not crybaby about it , are you? Does the bank force you with a gun to open an account with them? Or perhaps you prefer to hide your money underneath your bed?
Finally, is Google forcing you with a gun to use their search engine?
August 12th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Falafulu said…
[Sean, your example here is completely irrelevant and not worth responding to. Selling crack is illegal, period.]
Ah, but that is my point exactly, we as a society decide that certain types of behaviour are not acceptable, or in other words illegal. Such as crack dealing. We decide that although your car is yours, there is a maximum speed you can drive it at, we decide that although a house is yours, you may not turn it into an all night club in the middle of a residential area. We may decide that although a search engine is yours, there are limits on how you use the data you collect. Conversations like these are where to movement to have such regulations imposed begin. Niall raised very legitimate concerns and I believe that society can benefit by controlling the behavior of companies such as google. Simply stating that its their private system and therefore he has no business even suggesting such a thing is profoundly undemocratic and ignores the way in which the societies we live in actually work. Insisting that cars be built safely, that drinking water be sanitary,
To take your example about banks using transaction data for marketing. Here in the EU they must explicity get your permission to use your data in that manner. Every bank form contains explicit opt in checkboxes for such use (not opt out it is important to note) by law. Google may not be forcing me with a gun to use their search engine, but nor do we force them to do business here. If they dont like our regulations they are also free to go elsewhere.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Hello, all,
First of all, let me thank you for your conversation. It’s great that these topics are being discussed, and the fact that there’s some disagreement is incredibly useful for articulating certain points.
Niall, I agree that this video doesn’t portray the complete privacy picture, and I’m interested to see what info Google gives us in the next video (according to them, this one is the ‘first in a series’). Given the tone of the video, it seems that the target audience is someone like my mom, who is unlikely to become enmeshed in the more complicated privacy concepts and who probably just wants to understand the terms. So should a more complete privacy picture be portrayed to those people? We could make an argument that people who aren’t already passionate are the ones who need the most information, since they’re unlikely to investigate for themselves. We could also argue that they just don’t care.
Falafulu, you are absolutely right that Google is legally entitled to behave as it chooses, and it’s important for them to understand that those behaviors will have repercussions on whether people continue to use its search engine and, ultimately, whether advertisers continue to pay Google’s way.
We are all intricately connected. Google provides a service to the community, who use it because the service is good and, for now, we trust the company. Advertisers go where the community is, and so they pay money to Google to obtain exposure. Shareholders go where the money is, and so the more advertisers there are the better the shareholders do. Remove any of the links along that chain and the whole ecosystem (eco for economy, not ecology) falls apart.
Your comment about businesses being there in the first place to make a profit is an interesting one. While it is true that businesses cannot survive without profit, one thing that truly visionary companies have in common is that they have a primary purpose for existence that is beyond profit. My personal belief is that profit is like blood. We all need blood to survive, but our purpose for existence is not to circulate blood around our bodies. I wouldn’t be gratified by a career that didn’t offer me some higher reward beyond money.
Sean, I couldn’t agree with you more—democracy at its best begins with conversation, and we’re lucky that we’re allowed to engage conversation that includes opposing viewpoints. The primary purpose of this discussion is to bring to the forefront those issues that people care about so that we can each make our own informed consumption choices. It may be that people aren’t concerned with the privacy implications of Google’s actions and this conversation becomes moot. It may be that people actually care tremendously and we decide we’ll only use search engines that conform to certain standards. As you rightly point out, this type of discussion is how we evolve our ideas as a society.
Did you see the movie The American President? “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil and who’s standing center stage, advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours…”
My deepest gratitude to you all.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:01 am
Sean said…
[We may decide that although a search engine is yours, there are limits on how you use the data you collect.]
No, Sean. Could you state those limits. State clearly of where Google has violated those limits.
Didn’t you read my whole post? I stated clearly, that as long as Google is doing things within limits of its legal rights, then they are free to do whatever they like with the collected data (note my emphasize free). It is the same as free speech. It doesn’t mean that you’re allowed free speech, that you can start defaming someone, which is entirely illegal.
Sean said…
[Simply stating that its their private system and therefore he has no business even suggesting such a thing is profoundly undemocratic and ignores the way in which the societies we live in actually work.]
Sean, stop talking about undemocratic, because as you well know that as a proponent (you) of states that interfere in private affairs of its citizens via legislation is an undemocratic one. Have you heard of USSR? North Korea? Cuba? I thought that socialism was dead in the early 1990s when communism collapsed, but now I know that it is still around and alive today.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Jeepers. Oops. Wow. I DON’T hold SO MANY of the views that have been ascribed to me that I can’t imagine even starting to refute them!
Its clear that Falafulu is fired up about democracy and his ideas of what it involves and is rightly passionate about it, but he also seems to be seeing bogeymen where there are none. He’s been so ready to jump to conclusions, make assertions and assumptions about other peoples political and economical viewpoints that it feels like he’s on a Quixotic wide-eyed crusade of some sort and lost me some time ago.
Instead, I’d like to get back on topic. I would personally prefer it if Google would address the privacy concerns that people are actually most concerned about if they are to address privacy at all. I think those particular concerns could be addressed quite simply by Google like this.
“Many independent experts are concerned that the cumulative data that we collect allows us to paint a detailed picture of your personal identity in a way that is unprecedented in history…etc.. etc..and some jurisdictions have come up with new legislation to protect their citizenry from the potential to abuse the power that that gives us…”
I feel that in choosing to address privacy as they did in the video, that they have deliberately set up a ’straw man’ (ie an argument/issue that they could then easily dispatch). This seems to me to be a deliberate ’spinning’ tactic to give false reassurance to those that have a vague awareness that there is something fishy about Google’s attitude to privacy.
But don’t jump to the conclusion that I think ’spinning’ is ‘evil’. If Google didn’t spin then maybe they’d end up having the absurd press conference I imagined above.
That said, I don’t think theres any harm in unravelling the spin to discern what’s really going on. That’s just the responsible thing to do as part of the relationship. If anyone wishes to comment on my observation that there is a disconnect between what Google addresses in this video and what the experts are actually most concerned about then I think we might have a conversation that is actually back on topic of how Google has addressed privacy concerns in the video.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Niall,
I think you’ve really laid out the argument clearly and succinctly here.
If there is the potential for the highly amusing press conference you described, then the conversation we’re having here and others like it are fundamentally necessary for individuals to be aware and make informed choices.
My hope and belief is that there isn’t the potential for Google to make that kind of announcement, i.e., that they are genuine in their corporate desire to do right by people and that they’re struggling with the tension between honoring people’s privacy and generating greater competitive advantages.
If that is the case, then I feel the most effective way to deal with an issue like this is to be as transparent as possible about it. Communications like the one you described:
?Many independent experts are concerned that the cumulative data that we collect allows us to paint a detailed picture of your personal identity in a way that is unprecedented in history?etc.. etc..and some jurisdictions have come up with new legislation to protect their citizenry from the potential to abuse the power that that gives us??
I think people have a lot of respect for individuals and companies who face issues head-on.
Thank you as always.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
[...] It’s the second in their video-series-of-indeterminate-length. You can see the first one here. [...]
November 6th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
[...] they do these days is greeted with cynicism. Take Maile Ohye and the Google Privacy Videos (one and two). Just a few days ago, Ryan Singel at Wired gave his non-held-back opinion on them: The [...]