<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<div>
<p>Matt Cutts of Google <a href="http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/privacy-international-loses-all-credibility/">
responded, informally</a> to the Privacy International report,
citing the privacy lapses of AOL and other companies. I'm not going
to address these, particularly since <a href="http://blog.insiderchatter.com/2007/06/11/google-is-wrong-on-consumer-privacy/">
Donna Bogatin</a> has done this, so well.</p>
<p>Some of Matt's readers assumed PI was motivated by some form of
corruption or corporate bias, or that the report was an attempt to
garner attention. I doubt the corruption, but it's true that watch
dog groups operate almost purely on the attention they can generate
about an issue.</p>
<p>Regardless of motivation, none of this discounts what the report
says, or how people are reacting to it. That's what should be the
focus of our discussion now, and that's what the folks of Google
should be paying attention to. I wrote the following in comments at
Matt's post:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Try this on for size:</p>
<p>Start from the premise that perhaps this organization’s concerns
are a legitimate reflection of how people are going to perceive
Google in the years to come. And then think about how this could be
a way of ‘kicking’ Google out of its complacent dependence on the
goodness of its search for the ultimate algorithms, by reminding
those in charge that the internet is more than a set of
calculations.</p>
<p>This is an opportunity for Google. Unless you see it this way,
get used to having your spleen agitated on a regular basis.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What's not needed is more PR for Google, or some form of privacy
czar. The former will just recommend more paint for the cracked
walls; the latter will get caught up in the mechanics of what is
Google–which is an organization centering around the push for
perfect searches, perfection being determined in a scholarly
vacuum.</p>
<p>I've never been particularly concerned about Google releasing
data outside of the company, or to the government. Well, at least
not the US. It's not in the company's interest, from a corporate
stand point, or from the personal views of the workers.</p>
<p>What I've long been concerned about is what Google does with
this data internally. You see, I have a difficult time trying to
figure out why having IP addresses associated with specific
searches is such an important component of the algorithms for these
searches. After all, one doesn't need to know the exact IP address
to see which items are clicked through to from searches. One
assumes that when creating a generalized search, click through
rates would be sufficient.</p>
<p>But no, the company specifically stores IP addresses with these
searches. I'm not a search engine wiz, but one can assume the
company is checking for patterns across a universe of searches.
This gives it the ability to take search to the next levels of
complexity–and the more information about how individuals approach
search as a whole, the better it can fine tune algorithms. In fact,
it would be nice if we would search under our names so it wouldn't
have to muck around with IP addresses that can change. It will even
provide us a history of such searches.</p>
<p>However, attempts along this line have not met with universal
acceptance, which must be a source of frustration to the company.
Why? Because the company really isn't 'evil', and doesn't have
'evil' intentions with its data. If it did, our lives would be so
much simpler.</p>
<p>I assume the company is storing the IP address with the searches
in order to generate a more semantically meaningful search
result–exploring search as it relates to other searches; to perhaps
even have the engine 'learn' from previous search efforts and
adjust results accordingly. Not necessarily a bad thing to do,
though people behave based on their unique environment, built of
life experiences, that tends to blur the ability to derive any
universally useful heuristic from captured patterns.</p>
<p>However, add this with the other data that Google can
capture–either about a person, specifically, or about a given IP
address at a time:</p>
<ul>
<li>Payments through Google Checkout, which provides valuable
information about our buying patterns</li>
<li>What weblogs we subscribe to, <em>and</em>, which items in
those weblogs a person actually clicks through to. We can assume
that 'click through' denotes a heightened level of interest</li>
<li>Information stored or maintained through Google applications,
such as documents, spreadsheets, software, email, or our
calendars–that's a pool of potentially very personal, and therefore
richly enticing, data in those applications</li>
<li>Where we live, where we're going, how we're getting there, and
with calendaring, why we're going</li>
<li>What I read. What I read anywhere on the web.</li>
<li>What I write. Also anywhere on the web.</li>
<li>What groups I participate in, what usenet groups did I
participate on in the past</li>
<li>What videos do I watch, what images do I work on, which ones do
I view</li>
<li>Who are my friends? What clubs do I belong to? What political
party am I member of?</li>
<li>What are my financial investments? What companies am I most
interested in right now?</li>
</ul>
<p>I culled this list from the Google applications I know of, all
reflecting the type of data that Google can, and most likely is,
collecting about us. That's a lot of data. Why is it collecting
such? For better searches? Not likely. In order to personalize the
web? There could be something to this, and this is one area where
our interpretations of Google's activities can differ, widely,
between us.</p>
<p>Many people seem to feel 'flattered' or even grateful when
software remembers about us. I'm not sure why–perhaps it has
something to do with feeling alienated from this large world, or
from those around us. Perhaps we're just lazy and anything that
promises us simpler access to data is viewed as 'good'.</p>
<p>Google also projects this warm feeling of intimacy by the
simplicity of the company's interfaces to many of the tools. They
are not especially polished or sophisticated. They strike one as
being efficient, simple, clean, and straight forward. There's never
even a hint, at any time that Google is a multi-billion dollar
corporation that's becoming one of the most major influences in
both our culture and our lives. A company whose shareholders
recently voted to continue doing business with China rather than
take a stand against that country's repressive policies.</p>
<p>Yet Google gave us satellite views in our maps, and tools and
toys we can use as much as we want without once charging us a
penny. It gave us Developer Days, and GWT, and Maps; supports open
source, and hires some of our favorite people. It is a teddy bear.
A really big, really smart teddy bear.</p>
<p>Looking beyond the fur, though, we have to remember that Google
is a company that can be both ruthless, and single minded in its
determination of the course its charted for itself. For all that we
may like those members of Google who we know–through weblogs,
conferences, or other associations–they are only part of a much
bigger whole. Their individual beliefs and personal morals can only
influence the company as much as that inner, powerful sanctum that
is the heart of Google allows. And the inner heart of Google is one
based on a corporate belief in the ultimate righteousness of its
algorithms. A belief that over time, as these algorithms are
allowed to increase in sophistication, they will filter out bias,
bigotry, and ignorance. The company believes passionately in its
research–so much so that it can't even comprehend why we're so
worried about privacy. What was it <a href="http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/privacy-international-loses-all-credibility/#comment-106282">
one person wrote in Matt's comments</a>? <em>People that aren’t us
won’t get it.</em>.</p>
<p>Many at Google would most likely agree with me when I say the
following: there is a purity of purpose behind such efforts at
Google. I have no doubt that Google's efforts really are focused on
finding the best results. I also have no doubt that Google sees
such as being of benefit to the community. I might even agree with
the necessity. Agree until…</p>
<p>Until the results of such are used to monetize who we are, and
what we do on the web. To know exactly what ads we'd be most
vulnerable to at any point in time. To mark who is potentially
dangerous, and who is not. To determine what it thinks we really
want to see when we come looking for information. Perhaps even to
determine who is not worthy of being seen.</p>
<p><em>Tell me what job should I take, Google.</em> Anyone remember
that?</p>
<p>Information is power. I once wrote that Google is one of the
most dangerous companies I know and was discounted for making a
grandiose claim. Yet there is probably no entity in the world that
knows more about us, that has more information on us, then Google.
Not even the IRS knows that I like Firefly or that I vote Democrat.
The state or a potential employer doesn't know that I'm searching
for low cholesterol recipes. The Department of Homeland security
isn't aware that I daydream about traveling, and plan secret little
vacations that I can't afford. No government on the world is party
to my fears, hopes, dreams, and worries as much as the search
engines I use.</p>
<p>Some would say, correctly, that there is a simple solution:
don't use Google products. True, I do switch search engines on a
daily basis. But search engines are only the tip. What happens when
Google starts tracking through ads? Through page readers? Through
Google Analytics and Reader and Books and what all? Through the
hundred other little areas that we look at with such fond
indulgence because they, you know, <em>have cool APIs</em>?</p>
<p>Keeping our data in raw form for up to two years? Why so long?
The reasons given make no sense. They never did. How much data is
gathered, and will be gathered with new acquisitions, is also
unknown. Google has bought a lot of companies, and is associated
with still others. We really don't have an idea, at all, how much
information is being tracked to us through cookies and IP
addresses. We also don't know who in the company has access to it,
and how much the data is directly connected to individuals.</p>
<p>Google wants to know all about us, but isn't willing to let us
know enough about it so that we can make rational assessments of
our privacy risks. When, in ignorance of such information, we write
based on conjecture, it pooh poohs our fears, and discounts our
worries and repeats that it is 'better than other
companies'–equivalent to we in the US saying our form of torture
isn't as bad as that practiced in other countries, and at least our
methods don't leave scars.</p>
<p>Most worrisome of all gaps in our knowledge of Google operations
is what profiles are generated from the data that Google collects,
and exactly how long will such derived information be stored? What
was it the folks at Google said once? It wants to eventually store
the web? If so, then space is not a concern. I imagine much of me
can be compressed into a space less than a Gig in size.</p>
<p>Regardless of your opinion of the Privacy International report,
isn't it about time Google realized that not everyone shares the
same faith in the company's<em>purity of purpose</em>; nor the same
belief in the inherent neutrality and fairness of algorithms? Two
years. What was I searching for two years ago–I can't remember now,
but Google can. Two years. That's longer than my first marriage.
Come to think of it, Google probably knows as much about me, or
more, than my first husband. Considering my first husband, though,
this isn't surprising and one of the many reasons I divorced
him.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I don't have the option to divorce Google.</p>
</div>
</div>