Google search the platform

By allowing Google to track my web browsing, Google becomes a more effective knowledge management platform.

Privacy International complains about Gmail

Privacy International lodged a complaint with a number of privacy regulators around the world about targeted advertising in Gmail.

Official Google Blog: Google search privacy: Plain and simple

Official Google Blog: Google search privacy: Plain and simple

Search queries saved in logs: Misspelled search terms, prompts for "did you mean".

IP address: Search results returned to the correct computer. Can tell which provider and general location.

Cookies: Small file stored on computer. Reminds of preferences from last time. Search results per pages and language preference

Log of visit: Receipt of visit. Search term, IP address, cookie ID, browser version, operating system, date and time of search.

Some parts of IP address and cookie will be deleted after 18 months.

War in the age of digital machines: Manuel de Landa

De Landa proposes the concept of the Panspectron (p. 206). Whilst referring to Bentham's Panopticon, which is he points out, a powerful tool for political and societal control through the perception of continuous surveillance, he suggest the Panspectron gathers all the available information about all subjects all of the time. Through a systems of filters and key word matching matters of interest are identified and this results in the subject being brought into focus.

Put this in a modern context and we have the system of robots (bots) employed by search engines that continually search the internet, reporting their findings of information and information linkages back to central points. Data is then analysed through a system of algorithms, such as Google's Page Rank system and this results in the searches we use today. It's only when someone searches (employees the Panspectron's keywords and filters) does the relevant data appear.

Google Public Policy Blog: Data retention: the right balance between privacy and security

A quick post to a piece on the Google Public Policy blog from Peter Fleischer about Google and the EU policy on data retention. Will probably be worth coming back to this one.

Google Public Policy Blog: Data retention: the right balance between privacy and security:

"Citizens should have a right to privacy online. And governments have an obligation to keep their citizens safe. Finding the right balance between privacy and security is a delicate balancing act. Europe’s recent experience with data retention holds interesting lessons for everyone concerned with this balance."

Thesis for my next essay

Are individual privacy rights at greater risk as a result of Google's privacy practices?

Eric Scmidt calls for new global privacy regulations

I found this on Peter Fleischer's blog. It's Eric Scmidt, CEO of Google, urging the nations of the world to adopt new privacy regulations. Although it sounds good in theory, the cynic in me believes that it's a diversionary tactic to take attention away from the Google/DoubleClick deal. The comment by Anne Cavoukian tends to reinforce this thought. Ms Cavoukian suggests Google adopts a set of privacy standards her organisation has already developed.

Why Google wants to get to know you - more

Google wants to get to know you - more. Although widely critised for their privacy policies, including a stinging rebuke from Privacy International, Google is mounting a PR campaign of epic proportions to convince web surfers, legislators, and the public in general that the world will be a better place by the search giant knowing even more details about our lives.

As as has been reported here previously, Google is currently in negotiations with the FTC and EEC to seek approval for their USD$3.1 billion (yes, that is a lot of money)
purchase of online advertising agency DoubleClick. Their strategy is simple. Google already dominates the search advertising market with their USD$10.6 billion dollar revenue stream continuing to grow on the back of their highly successful Adsense advertising programme - Adsense places advertisements onto web pages based on the page's content. But as much as that is an ingenious, and clearly lucrative marketing strategy, Google knows little about the interests of web surfers in general. And that's where the powerplay of the DoubleClick purchase begins. Doubleclick is the master of the online advertising world; there's hardly a major brand who hasn't used the company to design an online campaign. And the reason for their success is that they're clever, very clever. Utilising an intricate system of advertisements, cookies, and other tricks of the trade, DoubleClick can track the movements of web surfers as they travel from site to site. From this tracking, surveillance, and recording, DoubleClick has amassed profiles of consumers to the point where they are now able to deliver tailored web advertising to a web surfer based on their surfing habits. And it is this asset that has Google so interested. By combining there immense power in search, with DoubleClick's strength in digital advertising, Google will have completed an amazing metamorphosis from garage-incubated hatchling, to online privacy monster in just 10 short years.

Clearly, there are significant concerns about the power Google will have at its disposal, particularly as that power translates into potential breaches of individual privacy. After all, Google/DoubleClick will have the resources, based on the combination of search and browsing history, to predict and influence consumer behaviour in ways never before imagined. And it is these threats that have privacy advocacy groups clambering to be heard, and it is these capabilities that are seeing competitors, such as Yahoo and Microsoft running to the government accusing Google of being variously anti-competitive and a risk to individual privacy.

Google know there's a lot at stake here. Knowing that better targeted advertising means more effective advertising, and more effective advertising means bigger advertising revenues, Google continues to pursue this deal vigorously. With some pundits expecting them to gain the required approvals for the deal, we could soon find that the "Do No Evil" enterprise knows much more about us than we might expect.



This post was originally on one of my class blogs.

Our attitudes to privacy: on Google and Jaiku

Over at Loose Wire Blog, Jeremy Wagstaff lists all the possible private information that Google may know about us as a result of their acquisition of Jaiku, the micro-blogging platform. It's a significant list and one that gives us pause for concern. However it may say much about attitudinal shifts in values that users of online services of all kinds, are giving away information that was previously considered private.

Privacy is all about self-disclosure and the control of access of others to our inner-self. It's very possible that many of us no longer consider our mobile phone number, address, or the suburb in which we live, private information. After all these pieces of information are relatively easy to find out. Maybe we've made the assessment and believe that the rewards outweigh the risks. Or perhaps the Internet has seduced us into believing that we are far safer and far more protected than we really are. I suspect that the answer is a combination of both.

It never ceases to amaze me to see how much private information people are willing to give away on social networking sites such as Facebook. With Google's purchase of Jaiku, they have all the ingredients of a powerful social network, much more powerful in my opinion than the others. The combination of search, gmail, maps, and now Jaiku provide Google with a unique and incredibly deep, understanding of who we are, what we're doing, what interests us, and what we're planning. And if Google complete the DoubleClick deal, who knows, perhaps the machine will tell us that we need a new pair of sneakers before we had a chance to give it a thought.

Speaking of which, mine are getting a bit old.

Matt Cutts disagrees with Privacy International

Matt Cutts, head of Google's web spam team is not taking Privacy International's accusation of poor privacy practices lying down. In a fiery and enthusiastic post on his private blog, Cutts claims that PI simply walked past companies that were handling privacy poorly, and focussed instead on a company that is doing something positive about the issue. However, Cutts tends to justify his position by pointing to companies that have done worse than Google as opposed to defending the accusations on their own merits, He cites, for example, the release by AOL of millions of raw search queries that lead to the identification of an AOL user. If this is the case, AOL indeed has some improvements to make, but their sloppiness does not make Google a model corporate citizen. And simply because Google is helping out young software programmers with real world experience, does not change the fact that Google's software necessarily relies on significant and ongoing surveillance that must surely become more comprehensive as new and more personalised services are added.

Undoubtedly PI may have erred on the heavy-handed side when making their assessment of Google. In fact, their report stated that their findings would be seen as controversial. But Google is a big corporation and, rather then being thin-skinned and sensitive, would do well to take on board the concerns expressed in the report and work toward being extra-diligent in the handling of customers' private information.

On Google and DoubleClick

Google wants to get to know you - more. Although widely critised for their privacy policies, including a stinging rebuke from Privacy International, Google is mounting a PR campaign of epic proportions to convince web surfers, legislators, and the public in general that the world will be a better place by the search giant knowing even more details about our lives.

As as has been reported here previously, Google is currently in negotiations with the FTC and EEC to seek approval for their USD$3.1 billion (yes, that is a lot of money)
purchase of online advertising agency DoubleClick. Their strategy is simple. Google already dominates the search advertising market with their USD$10.6 billion dollar revenue stream continuing to grow on the back of their highly successful Adsense advertising programme - Adsense places advertisements onto web pages based on the page's content. But as much as that is an ingenious, and clearly lucrative marketing strategy, Google knows little about the interests of web surfers in general. And that's where the powerplay of the DoubleClick purchase begins. Doubleclick is the master of the online advertising world; there's hardly a major brand who hasn't used the company to design an online campaign. And the reason for their success is that they're clever, very clever. Utilising an intricate system of advertisements, cookies, and other tricks of the trade, DoubleClick can track the movements of web surfers as they travel from site to site. From this tracking, surveillance, and recording, DoubleClick has amassed profiles of consumers to the point where they are now able to deliver tailored web advertising to a web surfer based on their surfing habits. And it is this asset that has Google so interested. By combining there immense power in search, with DoubleClick's strength in digital advertising, Google will have completed an amazing metamorphosis from garage-incubated hatchling, to online privacy monster in just 10 short years.

Clearly, there are significant concerns about the power Google will have at its disposal, particularly as that power translates into potential breaches of individual privacy. After all, Google/DoubleClick will have the resources, based on the combination of search and browsing history, to predict and influence consumer behaviour in ways never before imagined. And it is these threats that have privacy advocacy groups clambering to be heard, and it is these capabilities that are seeing competitors, such as Yahoo and Microsoft running to the government accusing Google of being variously anti-competitive and a risk to individual privacy.

Google know there's a lot at stake here. Knowing that better targeted advertising means more effective advertising, and more effective advertising means bigger advertising revenues, Google continues to pursue this deal vigorously. With some pundits expecting them to gain the required approvals for the deal, we could soon find that the "Do No Evil" enterprise knows much more about us than we might expect.

Google privacy concerns compounded by cookie vulnerability

Competition is a wonderful thing. It encourages innovation, keeps prices in check, and it brings to our world new and exciting products that create benefits to humanity. But competition and innovation don't always work for everyone, and all too often the consequences of rapid product development are unnecessary risks to society. And it is this backdrop that provides an interesting, if not fascinating, twist to a new battle between Internet search giant Google and software behemoth Microsoft.

It seems hardly surprising that Microsoft has announced plans to counter the threat posed by Google documents and spreadsheets. Google's entry into the office productivity market is clever strategy. For years now, Microsoft has been the leader in this lucrative marketplace, holding what many believe to be an unassailable monopoly. Previous attempts to establish a breach-head into the office applications market by various competitors has met with little or no success. Microsoft, for example, have no doubt kept a close watch on Open Office, a suite of office productivity applications which, despite receiving rave critical reviews and being totally free, has caused an insignificant number of customers to shift their allegiance. With this in mind, Google's announcement of their release of Google Docs could easily have been taken lightly by Microsoft; and it appeared for some time that is exactly what happened. After all, Docs was released as a beta version in September 2006 and Microsoft's response has been almost 12 months in the making. But Microsoft knows that Google is Google. With a big brand, lots of customers, and huge developer resources at their disposal, the search giant can make things happen. Which is precisely why Microsoft has responded to Google's web-only offering by creating Office Live Workspace, a program that works with Microsoft Office products allowing people to view, store, and share Office documents online. To many people, this product is a welcome innovation. Mobile workers, students, and travelers will undoubtedly benefit from the increased flexibility that Internet based storage provides, without the arduous task of migrating their Office documents to Google Docs. So what then could be the downside in such rapid development of Internet based software?

The risk to consumers comes from a security threat from Cross Site Scripting (XSS) attacks which are instigated when a line of code, placed on a malicious but otherwise normal web page, captures a person's cookie details and potentially gives the hacker access to user names and passwords. A recent report on Google Blogoscoped reveals how such an attack, created in a controlled environment, allowed a 'hacker' limited access to another person's Google account - including Google Docs. Whilst Google are aware of the problem and continue to issue security warnings to webmasters, the fact that a person's Google Docs area was potentially compromised gives web surfers reason to be concerned. It may also give Microsoft the opportunity to take the high ground on security, and some degree of comfort in their decision to respond slower than usual to a competitive threat.

Indeed competition is a wonderful thing - usually. But it appears that Google's rush to innovate, to steal a march on a competitor, to bring a product to the market quickly, has shown the dark side of innovation. It's the dark side where privacy is not paramount and where security is not treated with the highest priority. Unless Google places the privacy and well-being of their customers first, the future for the Internet will be cause for grave concerns.

Google-DoubleClick deal seen winning approval | CNET News.com

Google-DoubleClick deal seen winning approval | CNET News.com:

"Antitrust experts predict that Google's purchase of advertising company DoubleClick for $3.1 billion will be approved by U.S. regulators despite vehement opposition from competitors Microsoft and Yahoo."

EU privacy body to take months on Google probe | CNET News.com

EU privacy body to take months on Google probe | CNET News.com: "The European Union's data watchdog will take another few months to decide whether Google or other Web search engines may be violating EU privacy laws, a participant in the watchdog's meeting said on Wednesday."

I'm writing an essay on the broader context of privacy and how we voluntarily give up our private information in exchange for services and other commercial benefit. Do you believe search engines are invading our privacy? Should their activities be curtailed?

Announcement from Jaiku

"Wonderful Jaiku users,

Exciting news, Jaiku is joining Google!

While its too soon to comment on specific plans, we look forward to working with our new friends at Google over the coming months to expand in ways we hope you'll find interesting and useful. Our engineers are excited to be working together and enthusiastic developers lead to great innovation. We look forward to accomplishing great things together.

In order to focus on innovation instead of scaling, we have decided to close new user sign-ups for now. But fear not! All our Jaiku services will stay running the way you are used to and you will continue to be able to invite your friends to Jaiku.

We have put together a quick Q&A about the acquisition at http://jaiku.com/help/google

Jyri Engestrom and Petteri Koponen, Jaiku Founders"

I wonder if the boys at Twitter will be pissed off it wasn't them that was bought, or happy they didn't fall into the clutches of the do-no-evil empire

Google moves to turn YouTube clips into advertising cash | Technology | The Guardian

Google moves to turn YouTube clips into advertising cash | Technology | The Guardian: "Google has begun allowing advertisers to 'embed' clips from YouTube into their promotional messages, a sign of the search company's strategy to make money from its video streaming arm."

You can bet that this move will really get Adsense moving. Would you pay extra for an Adsense ad that allowed you to include a video clip? I'm thinking that it would produce a much better click through rate. Your thoughts?

For Google, advertising and phones go together | CNET News.com

For Google, advertising and phones go together | CNET News.com:

"Google wants to extend its dominance of online advertising to the mobile Internet, a small market today, but one that is expected to grow rapidly. It hopes to persuade wireless carriers and mobile phone makers to offer phones based on its software, according to people briefed on the project. The cost of those phones may be partly subsidized by advertising that appears on their screens."

Google Associate General Counsel to Speak at EFF Bootcamp and Google to Offer Scholarships

EFF: DeepLinks:

"Google Associate General Counsel Alex Macgillivray has agreed to attend the EFF Compliance Bootcamp on October 10 and to explain why Google thinks it is important that Web 2.0 companies learn the information we're teaching."

Google-DoubleClick debate raises broader issues

CDT | Headlines: "The debate over the pending merger between Google and Internet advertising giant DoubleClick raises a host of broader questions about the online advertising industry at large and the structures that are in place to protect Internet users' privacy. In a statement to the Senate panel that is holding a hearing about the merger today, CDT identifies how the evolution of the Internet advertising marketplace has outpaced the industry self-regulatory effort intended to mitigate privacy intrusions. The statement highlights how new approaches, and a new national consumer privacy law, are needed to ensure that consumers are adequately protected."

Google proposes global privacy standard

Possibly as a result of Google's proposed acquisition of Doubleclick - a move that could have far-reaching implications for net privacy, Google is proposing a new minimum world privacy standard. But the weak part of their standard is their suggestion that a breach of privacy should only be considered serious if it involves actual harm to a user. Just what that means is uncertain, but there's plenty of human rights organisations up in arms about the proposal. Privacy on the net is a much bigger issue than many realise and it's wise not to swallow the corporate line too quickly.

Google proposes global privacy standard | CNET News.com