Uh huh. Google takes a similarly generous view of its own motives on the politically vexed issue of privacy. Mr. Schmidt says regulation is unnecessary because Google faces such strong incentives to treat its users right, since they will walk away the minute Google does anything with their personal information they find “creepy.”
Really? Some might be skeptical that a user with, say, a thousand photos on Picasa would find it so easy to walk away. Or a guy with 10 years of emails on Gmail. Or a small business owner who has come to rely on Google Docs as an alternative to Microsoft Office. Isn’t stickiness—even slightly extortionate stickiness—what these Google services aim for?
Jenkins, surprisingly enough, is making the pro-regulatory case here—or at least bringing it up—in questioning the “Don’t Be Evil” nonsense. He’s talking about network effects that make it hard to leave a site or service, and they’re very real.
The press would do well to focus on them more and on the implications of having monopoly firms like Google and Facebook (and anyone big or small, really) with extensive access to private information and a strong incentive to exploit it.
The Journal’s “What They Know” series is a good start.
— Further Reading:
Pushing Back Against Facebook’s Privacy Practices: The press and others bring needed new scrutiny to the social network
WSJ Privacy Series Raises Questions on Google’s Power: The bedrock principles of the Googleplex were built on sand, after all
Google Is Not a Heroic Defender of Privacy
WSJ Turns Over the Privacy Rock Online: An excellent investigation shows the alarming amount of info Web sites collect about you
There's no shortage of rhetoric (some highly technical but opinionated nonetheless) being thrown at Google especially with respect to how dangerous, evil, or invasive it has become. Staunch arguments are frequent claiming that Google manipulates information and the public and that it is destructive in several of its motions. And of course, some of the warnings are that Google might become some distorted information tyrant in the not too distant future, so be on your guard. I’m going to take a somewhat different stance here, not so much in defense of Google, but rather what it is we should really be focused on with regards to “Dangerous Corporations” especially within the corporate environment of 2011.
I would like to address this big concern with Google as a highly dangerous entity. First of all, how dangerous can it possibly be? Second, how dangerous can it get considering the fact that it doesn’t create anything tangible? Even if it were to maliciously spy on a large swath of the browsing public, how dangerous could it possibly get? Before readers jump to quick answers, first consider this: Google is an internet giant with more than just a roomful of employees. It is an exceptionally large corporation, a Mega Corporation with employees everywhere, a massive collection of people all of whom no doubt do not share some common ideology other than the fact that many of its employees most likely want their employer to stay in business, to succeed, and stay healthy in many ways. Google's collective force and vision, its business path, might mean further expansion to some employees, it might not mean anything of the sort to other employees. People get alarmed when they hear reports about events and information pertaining to the likelihood that the Google network is becoming either overly invasive or that it stands to become a monopoly as such. Remember, Google doesn't produce anything we can touch. Like many parts of those items attached to the internet it was assembled rapidly. Despite its size, it could also be rapidly disassembled if it suddenly were to become a reckless player. A major shift from a company like Google, still a very new company, towards outright invasive behavior and/or a zealous approach to gathering information could amount to a quick business-death-sentence, especially if substantiated reports of such behavior gather any sort of media momentum. This is part of the risk when a company provides a virtually invisible service. Its business hull consists of select intangible parts adjoined to one another, fragile pieces held together by rivets of trust. And Google can't afford to lose trust. If Google makes big waves in certain areas then it simply won't last no matter how big it is. A ship that size could potentially go down quickly.
Regardless of how Google tracks information, even if much of that collected information might appear to be very personal, again I ask the question: How dangerous can Google get? Also, does it in any way monitor itself? Short of any moral code or company mission that is firmly grounded on safe and best business practices, is there a design fail-safe within Google itself that won't or can't allow it to push the information envelope too far, even if the behavior of its directors or the motions of its business plan become increasingly suspicious? Google prompts a host of questions. But the age is changing. Given the information landscape of today. Given the competition of internet entities that provide similar services. Given the demands of intelligence and this new trump card called The Patriot Act that is available to play. Given the speed of communication and the outright responsibility that the media has to report accurate information and to make it quickly available to the general public. Given the fears that many people have about protecting their own personal information, and their own identities, and that being tracked or monitored by any
#1 Posted by Daniel A. Pino, CJR on Sat 4 Jun 2011 at 05:51 AM