On 27 March 2012 15:27, mick
<mbm@rlogin.net> wrote:
<Some big snips here, but all digested and a useful read, thanks>
There is a wonderful story about how the two wives of a
bigamist found out about each other by being introduced through
facebook (you both know this guy, you must want to know each
other.....).
There are similar stories about people getting caught out because of mutual friends in the "Real World", in this respect Facebook is just an extension. But I'm not getting into defending Facebook :-)
You may like the idea of well targeted ads, but Amazon have long
irritated me with their habit of telling me about products based solely
upon the fact that I bought a similar product in the past.
Like I said up front, this stuff makes me uneasy but I don't know why it should. I don't like ads at all, but if they have to be there I don't see why I should object more to ones that may be of interest (as long as I understand how the system generating them knew my interests). And by increasing the value of an ad by making it targeted, there is the real possibility of reducing the volume of ads in exchange. Google have always managed to be more discrete at advertising than the "old way" of web "portal" search engines like MSN/Yahoo etc.
My biggest problem with google is that it treats me as the product it
can milk to sell to others.
The implication of this comment is that Google is selling my data to third parties, which as far as I know it isn't (unlike all the junk mail providers). It has a pool of possible ads and selects ones based on what "it" (their computer system) knows about me. So rather than saying "ah, this bloke has some embarrassing STD, lets send his name and address to loads of STD clinics", it says "this STD clinic is paying me to promote its services, so I'll promote them to people who've searched for something related". This to me is way better than the alternative (you know the score: you donate some money to a charity then find they've sold your address details to other charities so you get bombarded with begging letters). The start and end points are basically the same (express an interest in something, get ads for that something) but the difference is that the merchant doesn't get my details unless I click through on the ad. This is also in Google's interest (what they know about me is what they can monetise, so why give the raw data away?)
Would I prefer none of this to happen? Yes, of-course. But I'd have to pay a *lot* for a similar service that wasn't advertising funded.
The recent furore around the change in
its "privacy policy" is a case in point.
To be honest I was a little surprised that they couldn't already aggregate the info so it didn't worry me too much. Again, not saying I like it, but I'm still yet to see a really good reason why it should bother me.
I don't often find myself agreeing with a Tory MP, but David Davies
said recently something like "if the state did what google does, there
would be uproar" (though as an aside I'd be a bit more relaxed if HMG
was doing this because at least there would be appropriate legal checks
and balances in place - something which is impossible with google).
Appropriate legal checks and balances maybe, but not implemented by competent people....
And of course, ever since the passing of the US patriot act after the
9/11 incident, US authorities can subpoena any company like google to
hand over everything it has on a particular subject - and you would
never know.
Indeed, although such are the attitudes of British governments that I wouldn't put them past granting access to UK data in the same way. I am very much one who sees governments (UK and US) and incompetent rather than malicious though. Google actually have a lot more to lose in letting my data escape (on the assumption that it was part of a major leak) than a government does, so I may even suggest they'll protect it better.
You compare google's activity to advertising funded television and
magazines and seem content that google should use all its considerable
knoweldge of you to give you "better" advertising.
Content? Maybe that's too string, but unconcerned? Probably.
I have a Tesco Clubcard in full knowledge that they track what I buy and target advertising accordingly too, although of-course just by using a credit/debit card they can "track" you. This I am similarly unconcerned (if not actually content) with.
Forgive me if I
worry about a company which (unsolicited) can send me a reminder to buy
my wife a present from her favourite shoe shop on her birthday next
week, particularly if I happen to be walking past that same shop at
that moment.
I still don't see why this harms my privacy. If they sent my details to the shoe shop then yes, but if an automated system sends me a message based on the data it has about me, which I am free to ignore, then I don't see the *privacy* issue here. It might be annoying being bombarded with ads, but again Google do seem pretty good at getting the balance right between "in your face" and "out of the way".
Even if you find google's current activities acceptable, consider where
this is going. Google does things incrementally.
Thin end of the wedge, etc. Yes, this is a concern. But as long as they keep the data rather than selling it, I don't see a privacy issue, and given that the data loses its value if sold then I don't see why the thicker end of the wedge will be heading in that direction.
Google is a big, fat, juicy
target for anyone (including large competing corporates or foreign
states) wanting to get hold of its data (sorry, your data).
Agreed. On the other hand they're better at looking after it than I am, which was where the bank analogy came in. Why would anyone rob me rather than a bank? Because it's easier.
what happens if they are subject to a hostile take
over by a much less friendly and cuddly company sometime in the
future?
Honestly: I don't know. This is one thing that does really bother me. Although the options for avoiding this problem are pretty limiting: running all your own services yourself. Google would be a pretty big target for a takeover - my data is probably therefore safer with them than with a lot of smaller companies who would otherwise be easier to "trust".
(Oh by way of example of what can be done quite legitimately at the
moment with publicly available data published on social networking
sites, take a look at the appropriately named tool "creepy" at
http://ilektrojohn.github.com/creepy. I worry about the way my kids use
social networking sites. But then I'm just an old fart.)
Note that there is a big difference between Google and Facebook (/Google+). With one we're talking about data it collects about me that I am trusting to it. With the other we're talking about data that I am giving it with the express purpose of sharing it with friends, family, colleagues, etc - ie if I post to Facebook/G+ I am publishing. True, a lot of people have no idea just how much they're publishing, and tools like Creepy are great for helping people learn. Anything you find out about me from FB/G+ I take full credit (blame) for making available. Anything you can find out about me from Google (G+ excepted) is a different thing entirely.