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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.