The New York Times reports that a coalition, including companies like Google, is trying to push tougher privacy laws for digital information. Tougher privacy laws for the government, that is—not for the private corporations like Google and Facebook that own your information, monetize it, and spill it with alarming and increasing regularity.
The Times gives that hypocrisy short shrift—just a paragraph at the bottom of the story. So it’s worth recalling some of Google and Facebook’s greatest privacy hits from just the last few months:
Google CEO Eric Schmidt on privacy:
“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”
And then there was the Google Buzz debacle, which exposed Gmail contacts to the public without your permission, and which Schmidt tried to slough off.
Facebook isn’t in the coalition, but we’ll throw this in as an example of the privacy threat these companies present. It recently exposed tens of millions of users’ information without warning. CEO Mark Zuckerberg nonchalantly explained why:
A lot of companies would be trapped by the conventions and their legacies of what they’ve built, doing a privacy change - doing a privacy change for 350 million users is not the kind of thing that a lot of companies would do. But we viewed that as a really important thing, to always keep a beginner’s mind and what would we do if we were starting the company now and we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it.
Sound like a guy to trust? How about this guy? Schmidt again, as reported by Fortune:
“All this information that you have about us… Does that scare everyone in this room?” The questioner asked… “Would you prefer someone else?” Schmidt shot back… “Is there a government that you would prefer to be in charge of this?”
Talk about hubris. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago:
You mean a democratic government subject to, say, open-records laws, checks and balances, and the periodic will of the people?
Look, it’s all good that somebody’s trying to rein in government intrusions of privacy. Bravo. But the press shouldn’t let these corporations act like noble defenders of liberty. They aren’t.
You’d be a lot better served reading Ryan Tate on this issue than stuff like this NYT article.
Ryan - good call. Now here is something wild for you and yes, perhaps beyond the bounds of reality, but walk with me a bit here.
We are not going to stop the privacy train, sure we can tweek it at the edges to feel a little bit more comfortable about being a part of society, but in for an penny in for a pound. Short of using cash every where and not using a private computer to do searches (I'm not spending my time at the library just so Google can't track my searches) then I'm part of the system
That system means a digital footprint. And to an extent Schmidt is right, maybe I'm doing something I shouldn't be doing. Looking for another job on my current employer's time, taking a few dollars to play at an off shore casino, and a few other human vices that one may not be particularly proud of if the world was watching.
Now for a mind bending part, Perhaps technology is God's way of reminding us what Lincoln said, Character is what you do when no one is watching. Perhaps even the discussion of privacy will force us to look in the mirror.
Perhaps when I make a judgment about about someone based on their friending someone I don't like is a form of prejudice.
I see a significant percentage of people that think all this social media stuff is silly. It's a world they choose not to participant in and because of it they may well control how people perceive them better than those who steadfastly push their personal brand.
One more thing just for the record. I think it is interesting how many people in social media are building their personal brand on the backs of their employer. They are subsidized consultants, either willingly by their employer or unwittingly. However that is all out in the open.
#1 Posted by Albert Maruggi, CJR on Thu 1 Apr 2010 at 07:17 AM
Umm ... surely you were not referring to the US government as, "open, democratic, and subject to the will of the people"? I worry about privacy too, and don't think that they are the champions of it that this article suggests, but I would consider companies like Google and Facebook far more democratic than the US government. You can't stop using the government tomorrow if you decide you don't like it, and big guys with guns will show up at your door if you try to create an alternative that competes directly with it.
US democracy is already one dollar one vote. With these digital alternatives we are getting back closer to the original meaning of the term.
#2 Posted by Clark, CJR on Thu 1 Apr 2010 at 09:09 AM
Much of the confusion over the importance of digital privacy rights comes from ignorance of the value of the information commodity that is created by these services, and a lack of understanding of the potential for its misuse.
Your average facebook user or google searcher imagines the harvesting and analysis of personal data as a fair exchange used at best in the public interest, in the case of law enforcement, or at worst when exploited by financial data theives, social predators, spammers, etc. Targeted ad placement is now generally accepted as a benign experience and a fair trade for the "free" services offered by Google and Facebook. Beyond the obvious market advantage for those entities that can afford the access and analytical tools, is the potential for abuse for more nefarious ends, such as extortion, blackmail, corporate espionage and sabotage and political manipulation. Teenie facebookers and amazon shoppers may not be on NSA radar, but fringe militant groups "should be", so we feel its okay for Google to make deals with the government and law enforcement. However the educationally-handicapped, economically traumatised US public does not understand the compromised position it is in, in this age where the imperatives of global capital may supercede the interests of sovereign states. HIgh stakes games like trade exchanges, politics and legal battles, while beyond the awareness or understanding of the consumer class, will be the ultimate market for harvested information.
Information awards enormous power to those who know how to wield it, and the public is too careless when it awards this power without examination or public review.
#3 Posted by madeyemoody, CJR on Thu 1 Apr 2010 at 09:14 AM
Curious if Schmidt thinks his own words apply to his corporation: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” Will he let us know everything about what he does with our personal information?
#4 Posted by TJ Patton, CJR on Thu 1 Apr 2010 at 02:00 PM
The tension between MY information and YOUR business model will only accelerate as revenue becomes less about stuff and more about data. A commitment to managing my data will become a necessary element of customer service in our for-profit world. Companies will be held accountable -- by customers and the government -- to deliver on the promises it makes. When they fall short (which would include making changes without first checking with me!), they ought to suffer the same pain as did Toyota due to its sticking accelerators and soft brakes.
#5 Posted by John Berard, CJR on Tue 6 Apr 2010 at 02:10 PM