People tend to pick dogs for any fight and it's a shame. I've certainly been guilty of it myself - back when the DoJ went after MS I was frankly rabid in my support and felt pissed that they never forced MS to split applications from OS. A few friends were pro-MS and it drove me nuts
We're into really interesting legal territory now because there are just so many issues at play, and so many players with dominance in different areas. In the US Google may very well be able to claim strong first amendment rights to order their search results any way they want, in the EU they could try the same with the convention on human rights -though that's far less likely to succeed. Apple's control over the App market on the iPhone is not unprecedented but is certainly eye catching. Amazon is using their tremendous retail presence to push their own products over competitors. Google's control over the Android platform is arguably now greater than anything MS ever had over the PC market, and their requirement of bundling Google location services over Skyhook is a carbon copy of the MS IE bundling - but worse because unlike IE the location services aren't free to the handset makers/carriers.
I think the big thing with the skyhook is that skyhook wanted EXCLUSIVE rights to location data gathered on the device, so if the phone had skyhook, google wouldn't get any of that data, which raises some interesting issues when it comes to Google maps, location advertising, etc. If this allegation was true, it would mean some serious rewrites.
Also, the Motorola phones were Droid branded, launching "With Google" which is what I think gave Google the real power here, even more than the threat to withold market access. Nothing is stopping Motorola from making a Skyhook android phone, (even today) but they can't put "with google" on the back, and they might not get market access, which would limit the usability of it for Carrier markets. I'd argue that if a companies name, logo, etc were placed on a device, they have the right to dictate terms for that device. (Much like Apple can do with the "made for ipod" logo, and how they can go after companies that use that logo illegally)
Quote:
I'm personally not too worried about the 'dangerous precedent' argument. A lot of people felt the MS probe was a dangerous precedent, but without it we might very well not have Google at all today, maybe not even Apple.
What market is Apple abusing?
Music? They sell their music DRM free - there's no reason you can't sync it to an Android phone if you want to. Video? They're limited by their licensing agreements with the content providers - Force Majeure is a very strong defence.
They're selling their music DRM free now, but they still don't allow devices to sync directly with iTunes. Not saying there is anything wrong with this, but remember, the people bringing these charges will look for press even more than just looking for "hard" evicence (see government uproar about "location.")
Movies I understand. But what about how Apple uses their marketpower (an overwhelming number of purchases are made through iOS content stores) to dictate the terms of how companies deal with them, or possibly with others. Apple did try making it so content providers always had to give them the lowest price (IAP) but thankfully backed off of it.
Quote:
The key will be Apps, where Apple both controls and competes in a market that it has a kinda-sorta monopoly. It's possible that the FTC could construe Apple as holding a monopoly in selling iOS applications, but frankly Apple could just divest themselves of the App Store and move the regulation of the iOS app market into some independent entity. They don't really need the control themselves so long as they make sure that the market is curated by somebody.
I think they DO need to control it. I can't see apple giving up control (outside of being ordered to) because Apple's who deal is selling an experience. Guiding the customer from end to end, working to optimize each part so that the customer has the best experience (assuming they like iOS) possible.Again, nothing "evil" about this inherently, just how they approach the business, an approach that is paying off rather well for them.
Quote:
Anyway the FTC never investigated Nintendo or Sony over their control of their consoles markets, so it's hard to see how they would justify it in the case of Apple, unless Apple end up owning 80% of the handset market.
Consoles were always considered a "neat" toy, and hardly a commodity though. Digital media, and to a lesser extent "smart" devices would be considered a commodity. Sure, people can choose to get their CD's at Best Buy, but why bother when you can pick up the songs you want for just .99, or the entire album for sometimes 50% of the cost? Apple has a natural monopoly with this digital content. Sure, streaming services are starting to pop up here and there, but a lot of them are being held up in licensing because idiot record companies are afraid it will eat into their iTunes revenue (the same argument they used to avoid adopting itunes initially) not iTunes fault, per se, but it could be enough for some freshmen senator looking to get a press limelight.
Apple does control 80% of the PMP market, largely because of the tight integration between iTunes and iPod (and for making a device that hit all the right points for a consumer)
I'm not saying that there is a case against Apple or what apple is doing is "wrong" (I think most of it is just smart business) If it comes out that Google is actually manipulating search results to benefit their advertisers, or maliciously white/blacklisting etc, then I don't think it will set any precedent for Apple, at least as how everything stands.
The danger is if this whole thing is coming about because "More people use Google than anyone else, so since they are big we have to go after them for press" could be the first volley in the government trying (again) to involve itself more with the tech industry. One of the reasons tech is so big (and profitable) in the US is because the government has largely kept it's nose out of it, letting things develop naturally (compared to monitored markets) having the government come in and start dictating how companies should do business will be bad for everyone, no matter who the first target is, because they'll always choose a second.
Quote:
It's so much more fun to debate the actual issues I really don't get why people feel the need to immediately get personal.
It's because they don't actually want to debate the issues. They want to see everything in black/white good/evil and refuse to acknowledge that the world is a lot more complicated than that.
You are exactly right here! Most people think it is easy to challenge Google in the search space that they got the monopoly by playing nice and free. But there is no free lunch and what mostly bothers me is that Google is not just search anymore. They make operating systems as an advertiser. Now thats creapy!
Google is the modern troijan horse that is just bending the line of whats considered legal. They will cross this line trust me. I dont understand why people are so trustworthy and naive of corporate policy(do no evil). All I see is google corporate greed!
We start with a nice search engine and suddenly the operating system is the same. 10 years ago they could know my searches. But now they might know every keypress I make and every password I have?!?! Where did Google start to assimilate everything??? They Keep bending the line about privacy and soon YOU will see that YOU have been poked in the backhole. What information would YOU classify as private enough for an advertiser not to own? Maybe your bank information? Your health records/medical records? Your habits? Your routes?
We are at the moment allmost past the point where it might be impossible to compete with Google.
Have your read their privacy policies? Actually read them and not just what others say? Sure, you could argue that they are lying, but by that token you can't trust ANY company (Apple, etc) not to abuse the information you give them. I don't "blindly" trust Google. I keep up to date with their legal issues, and I've read their privacy policy (at least for the services I use.. can't tell you about Orkut, sorry) I know that they're audited for privacy and they agree to Safe Harbor laws and are one of the biggest supporters of Digital Due process.
Are they using information gathered by me and millions of other users to create targeted ads? Yes. Are they tracking me individually, selling my personal data to the highest bidder? No. (again, if you assert they are lying then everyone is lying, and we shouldn't use tech period)
For me, I've come to accept that if I'm doing something online, someone is getting my data. Thus far, Google's proven to be rather good stewards of it. Some of their would be competitors (notably facebook) have not.
For me, I've come to accept that if I'm doing something online, someone is getting my data. Thus far, Google's proven to be rather good stewards of it. Some of their would be competitors (notably facebook) have not.
That's a very good argument for a rational person, but Google's biggest problem is that fear isn't rational. If their customers start to fear them then no amount of PR or spin will be able to save them.
Let me give you an example from the past, back in the summer of 1997 Steve Jobs had returned to an Apple Computers that seemed in danger of imminently ceasing to exist. He wasn't yet CEO but he nevertheless gave a long Q&A session at the end of WWDC. John Gruber recently posted this on his blog and I think he was right to bring attention to it because it has some amazingly prescient stuff in it.
Anyway early in the session a guy asks about how Apple is planning to convince customers that it is still in business, and asks why there aren't big TV spots or full page ads in papers declaring that Apple isn't going anywhere. Steve patiently explains that the more money Apple spends trying to convince people that it's still relevant the more it will risk appearing irrelevant, and that the best way for Apple to get good PR is for it to turn a profit. History proved him right.
Customer's fears could only be allayed by seeing hard evidence that Apple was a going concern, no amount of reassurance could convince them once fear had gotten entrenched.
Google has a similar problem, though opposite. The more money it makes, the more dominant it becomes and the more aggressively it plays in new markets the more its customers will fear it. Once that fear takes hold no amount of PR, no amount of policy statements, no amount of promises will convince customers. Fear like faith isn't amenable to reason. In fact after a certain tipping point is reached in trust levels the more that Google protests its innocence the more it will appear guilty.
Google, for its own good, really needs to stop trying to expand into every possible web service, but rather like MS they don't seem able to do that until somebody makes them.
... Google, for its own good, really needs to stop trying to expand into every possible web service, but rather like MS they don't seem able to do that until somebody makes them.
And the problem is that, just like Microsoft, it can't stop that. Just like at Microsoft, the need to dominate and control is ingrained into the corporate psyche. Just like at Microsoft, the idea that, "If Google does it, it isn't evil," pervades the corporate consciousness. And just like at Microsoft, they won't stop until someone makes them, and maybe not even then.
The problem with Google goes well beyond the level of the problem with Microsoft. Microsoft often engaged in unethical and sometimes illegal behavior, but, in comparison, in a sort of low key, behind the scenes way. Google, on the other hand, flagrantly violates the law on a massive scale and when it gets caught belligerently declares that it will keep doing so. (Exhibit A: the Google Books program, AKA, "steal this book, and that one, and that one, and that one, ...".) This idea that that they are above the law is what makes Google the bigger problem, and the entire company seems to have undergone a moral inversion: the conviction that one's cause is so just that any action is justified by it.
Google's goal is to become the gatekeeper to information. All information. They want to control your information through Google Mail, Docs, etc. They want to control the information you access through search and maps and other "offerings". And regardless of how well intentioned they could be (although they have demonstrated that they are not) that sort of control of information is an attack on freedom. Is there really any difference in the danger from state controlled access to information or corporate controlled access to information? I don't think so. Control and the potential for censorship of information is just as big a threat to freedom regardless of the identity of the gatekeeper.
Yet, potentially, the biggest, although related, problem with Google is the threat they pose to personal privacy, and this threat is two-fold. First, there's the threat that Google itself won't be content with treating the data they collect in an anonymous fashion.
In one sense, they already, certainly, effectively don't. Data from various sources is linked together creating a digital profile of virtually anyone who uses the Internet. Their whole system is essentially a giant dragnet designed to discover everything that can be about everyone, ostensibly for the purposes of advertising. They don't treat disparate bits of data anonymously at all, but go to great lengths to tag everything with personally identifiable information, all of which points to millions of specific individuals. In other words, there is no anonymity in Google's database.
All well and good you might say, if they were a company that demonstrated some degree of respect for privacy, ethics and the law. But, as they've demonstrated time and time again, they aren't that company. They are already using that data in personally identifiable ways, and, given the culture of the company, it's simply a matter of time until they begin to use it in flagrantly abusive ways.
The other side of this threat is that they have become a one-stop shop for governments to go to when they want either information on specific individuals, or data to mine looking for "suspicious activity. There are some indications, Google's close ties with the NSA, for example, that this is already going on on a fairly wide scale, but whether it is now or not, it's just too valuable a treasure trove of personal data for governments to pass up, even if Google had the best of intentions on its own.
A lot of people like to dismiss this sort of talk as "tin foil hat", but doing so simply shows an ignorance of the real issues and dangers. A lot of people like to say that there isn't any privacy on the Internet anyway, so what's the big deal, but the reason there isn't any privacy on the Internet is in large part because of Google, and the idea that we should just accept that as the way things are is ridiculously absurd. If there's no privacy on the Internet, then there's no freedom on the Internet, and as that lack of privacy spills into the rest of our lives, our freedom is slowly drained away until we have nothing left.
All of these things would be of concern even if Google had demonstrated themselves to be the most scrupulously ethical and well intentioned of companies. Unfortunately, they've demonstrated exactly the opposite, making the concern even greater.
The problem with Google goes well beyond the level of the problem with Microsoft. Microsoft often engaged in unethical and sometimes illegal behavior, but, in comparison, in a sort of low key, behind the scenes way. Google, on the other hand, flagrantly violates the law on a massive scale and when it gets caught belligerently declares that it will keep doing so. (Exhibit A: the Google Books program, AKA, "steal this book, and that one, and that one, and that one, ...".)
You should bring yourself up-to-date with this particular claim. You either don't know the whole story, or prefer your own interpretation.
Otherwise, yes you do tend to push tin-foil hats whenever you speak of Google. While there's always a hint of truth in most of your comments about Google, I'm glad you pointed out a few weeks back that you won't pretend to be fair in your posts about them.
You should bring yourself up-to-date with this particular claim. You either don't know the whole story, or prefer your own interpretation.
Otherwise, yes you do tend to push tin-foil hats whenever you speak of Google. While there's always a hint of truth in most of your comments about Google, I'm glad you pointed out a few weeks back that you won't pretend to be fair in your posts about them.
Google is stealing books. There is no "interpretation".
And, as I pointed out above, this only seems "tin foil hat" to those who are ignorant about the issues, or those, like you, being paid to promote Google's position. Also, I'm sure I said I wouldn't be balanced, or "fair and balanced", but that's not the same as being accurate about them, which I will be.
Google is stealing books. There is no "interpretation".
I've not heard this about Google Books, though I've not heard much about Google Books at all? Is there somewhere I can go to read up about it? I'm quite curious.
I've not heard this about Google Books, though I've not heard much about Google Books at all? Is there somewhere I can go to read up about it? I'm quite curious.
Why don't you just google "Google Books lawsuits"? The New York Times has covered it extensively, as have other media. You must not be keeping up with the news.
The problem with Google goes well beyond the level of the problem with Microsoft.
Oh boy, this is a huge post, and I'm gonna try to deal with the different points, but I'll say right from the start we have a very different perception of how evil google actually is.
Quote:
Exhibit A: the Google Books program, AKA, "steal this book, and that one, and that one, and that one, ...".)
Google Books I would say is an incredible example of something that Google did right. There is a HUGE amount of literature out there that can't be searched because it is dead tree edition. Much of it is out of copyright, some wasn't but was nevertheless out of print. The publishing industry's objections to Google books were frankly insane, they didn't just object to the fact that in-copyright books were visible in their entirety - which is a copyright breach and google stopped doing - they also objected to pretty much everything else.
The publishing industry jealously defends content it no longer owns in much the same way that the music industry does. You'd be amazed how many CDs that cost £15 contain entirely public domain recordings.
My only regret is that Google books did such a relatively piss-poor job. Hopefully now that the legal issues are resolved things will improve and access to out of copyright or out of print books will be tremendously increased.
Quote:
Is there really any difference in the danger from state controlled access to information or corporate controlled access to information?
Obviously yes, but there's also a huge difference between state controlled media and state supplied media. When people talk about state controlled access to media they are generally not referring to the BBC, a popular source of state supplied information for over a billion people around the world - but to places like China or worse North Korea, where the state actively denies people access to information. Google is thus far much more like the BBC than it is like Kim Jong Il. If Google were going about secretly censoring things then googling for articles criticizing Google would show up less relevant stuff than using Bing does - ironically the opposite is true.
Quote:
Yet, potentially, the biggest, although related, problem with Google is the threat they pose to personal privacy, and this threat is two-fold. First, there's the threat that Google itself won't be content with treating the data they collect in an anonymous fashion.
Google have your search history, and if you use an anonymous browser - such as they one that they themselves supply - they don't even have that. The idea that they can directly link your searches to your name, address and waist size is just overblown. You think Google know you intimately? Imagine what Visa knows, or what firms like Experian know. Google is far from being the scariest firm in the privacy domain..
Quote:
The other side of this threat is that they have become a one-stop shop for governments to go to when they want either information on specific individuals, or data to mine looking for "suspicious activity.
Google have a FAR better record in defending their users against the Feds than the carriers do. Enormously better. They've forced the Feds to take them to court to get the data on several occassions. Carriers have just meekly handed over data every single time. Which is why the carriers subsequently got Congress to pass a law retrospectively legitimizing their illegal supplying of data to the Feds.
Quote:
All of these things would be of concern even if Google had demonstrated themselves to be the most scrupulously ethical and well intentioned of companies. Unfortunately, they've demonstrated exactly the opposite, making the concern even greater.
You are actually a great example of what I was talking about in my last post. Google has sunk so low in your trust now that nothing that they conceivably do could restore it. The more they attempt to convince you of their bone fides the more they will convince you otherwise. As of right now people like you are in the minority, but should you ever become the majority then it won't matter whether your beliefs are well founded or not - Google as a business will be finished.
... You are actually a great example of what I was talking about in my last post. Google has sunk so low in your trust now that nothing that they conceivably do could restore it. ...
Sure they could. They could start obeying the law and stop stealing intellectual property. They could respecting people's privacy and stop collecting personal identifying information on practically every site on the web. They could start trying to build a company based on creating rather than destroying. They could be honest and act with integrity rather than being deceitful and underhanded.
But I don't expect any of that to happen because their character at this point is set, and they don't know how to succeed any other way.
Oh boy, this is a huge post, and I'm gonna try to deal with the different points, but I'll say right from the start we have a very different perception of how evil google actually is.
Anonymouse equates Google with hitler/stalin/antichrist etc. It's pointless to try and tell him otherwise.
Quote:
Google Books I would say is an incredible example of something that Google did right. There is a HUGE amount of literature out there that can't be searched because it is dead tree edition. Much of it is out of copyright, some wasn't but was nevertheless out of print. The publishing industry's objections to Google books were frankly insane, they didn't just object to the fact that in-copyright books were visible in their entirety - which is a copyright breach and google stopped doing - they also objected to pretty much everything else.
The publishing industry jealously defends content it no longer owns in much the same way that the music industry does. You'd be amazed how many CDs that cost £15 contain entirely public domain recordings.
My only regret is that Google books did such a relatively piss-poor job. Hopefully now that the legal issues are resolved things will improve and access to out of copyright or out of print books will be tremendously increased.
I'm hoping it gets better too. There are some older books I'm interested in (I like looking into the history of Coffee for example) but for whatever reason a lot of the books I find on Gbooks are just scanned documents (and thus harder to read) instead of clear form documents. I'm not sure if this is because of legal issues, or because of a breakdown in their software. That being said, I like that I can find out of print content on there, for free. Things like Project Gutenberg are wonderful, but I do a lot of reading on my tablet, and for that Google Books is far easier to navigate (and find the free content). On the Kindle, often the first results for this out of copyright work are the ones by publishers still wanting to charge for it. Google Books has a direct link to the free versions.
Quote:
Obviously yes, but there's also a huge difference between state controlled media and state supplied media. When people talk about state controlled access to media they are generally not referring to the BBC, a popular source of state supplied information for over a billion people around the world - but to places like China or worse North Korea, where the state actively denies people access to information. Google is thus far much more like the BBC than it is like Kim Jong Il. If Google were going about secretly censoring things then googling for articles criticizing Google would show up less relevant stuff than using Bing does - ironically the opposite is true.
Also, Corporations generally are obligated to tell you how they use said information, and at least some knowledge of how they compile it. Governments are not.
Quote:
Google have your search history, and if you use an anonymous browser - such as they one that they themselves supply - they don't even have that. The idea that they can directly link your searches to your name, address and waist size is just overblown. You think Google know you intimately? Imagine what Visa knows, or what firms like Experian know. Google is far from being the scariest firm in the privacy domain..
I actually think he's referring to the fact that someone can use google to connect your Facebook/Linkedin/twitter profiles even if you never intentionally linked them. The problem with this argument is that it is the user's fault for making enough information publicly available (eg, open to search bots) that people can make the connection. It's like complaining that someone figured out where you worked because you kept taking pictures of yourself at work and showing it off to people.
Google works by finding information across the web and condensing it into something approaching relevance. It's how all search engines function, Google's just better at it than most. If you don't want people to connect who you are, then don't make that information public. Privacy is the responsibility of the individual, though Facebook having the habit of resetting your preferences whenever they update is certainly a problem. Google's not "building your digital profile" you are. I never got the "Google should stop being so good because people found me by searching for me" argument.
Quote:
Google have a FAR better record in defending their users against the Feds than the carriers do. Enormously better. They've forced the Feds to take them to court to get the data on several occassions. Carriers have just meekly handed over data every single time. Which is why the carriers subsequently got Congress to pass a law retrospectively legitimizing their illegal supplying of data to the Feds.
Also, their Data liberation front (working to make all the information you have in their ecosystem portable, along with instructions on how to remove it)
Quote:
You are actually a great example of what I was talking about in my last post. Google has sunk so low in your trust now that nothing that they conceivably do could restore it. The more they attempt to convince you of their bone fides the more they will convince you otherwise. As of right now people like you are in the minority, but should you ever become the majority then it won't matter whether your beliefs are well founded or not - Google as a business will be finished.
I don't think it's anything Google did specifically, just the fact that they exist, and that they do search was enough for him to hate them. he frequently mentions how they've shown "complete disregard" for personal privacy. But when pressed, he'll mention only the Google Books issue and The Streetview/unprotected wifi issue. (which an independent third party auditor cleared them of). He's stuck on those two issues, and the potential that they "Might" do something in the future because he doesn't trust their privacy policy.
Anonymouse equates Google with hitler/stalin/antichrist etc. It's pointless to try and tell him otherwise. ...
Your post is so full of misrepresentations and outright lies that it's hard to know where to even start. But, just to touch on a couple of points where you are particularly deceptive and misleading...
1. Let's stop pretending that the Google Books program is about scanning out of copyright books like Project Gutenberg. It's not, and I'm certain you know it's not. It's about scanning everything with complete disregard for copyright -- i.e., about flagrant theft of intellectual property in many cases. If it were as you represented it, there would not be lawsuits over it. Stop being dishonest.
2. I have in many posts here pointed out dozens of ways that Google violates personal privacy, not the least of which is through its Analytics program. So, again, your post is blatant dishonesty, which doesn't surprise me, since they pay you to lie for them.
Sure they could. They could start obeying the law and stop stealing intellectual property. They could respecting people's privacy and stop collecting personal identifying information on practically every site on the web. They could start trying to build a company based on creating rather than destroying. They could be honest and act with integrity rather than being deceitful and underhanded.
But I don't expect any of that to happen because their character at this point is set, and they don't know how to succeed any other way.
They are obeying the law and not stealing intellectual property. Do you have proof otherwise?
And they are acting with integrity rather than being deceitful and underhanded. Again, do you have examples that serve as prove otherwise? When you're not spreading FUD about Google, many of your posts make a lot of sense and add information to benefit other forum members. For some reason Google really chafes you to the point that wild, over-the-top accusations fly from your fingertips.
Some true and factual examples other than "Anonymouse says" would help if you're trying to convince us of Google's evil ways.
They are obeying the law and not stealing intellectual property. Do you have proof otherwise?
And they are acting with integrity rather than being deceitful and underhanded. Again, do you have examples that serve as prove otherwise? When you're not spreading FUD about Google, many of your posts make a lot of sense and add information to benefit other forum members. For some reason Google really chafes you to the point that wild, over-the-top accusations fly from your fingertips.
Some true and factual examples other than "Anonymouse says" would help if you're trying to convince us of Google's evil ways.
He doesn't have facts. He'll always point to things he's said "In the past" but in reality all he'll do is reply to practically Every post with the same meaningless raging he just replied to mine (assuming this is a full quote of the post he made) he'll say something along the lines of "it's obvious Google does this" you ask for proof and the ONLY time he brings something up is if it is the Google Streetview or books, often where he won't link to anything, just give his own opinion on the matter and expect you to accept it as fact.
When you call this into question, you immediately become a "Google Astroturfer" and then he'll use that to justify never responding directly to your questions (not that he ever does)
Have your read their privacy policies? Actually read them and not just what others say? Sure, you could argue that they are lying, but by that token you can't trust ANY company (Apple, etc) not to abuse the information you give them. I don't "blindly" trust Google. I keep up to date with their legal issues, and I've read their privacy policy (at least for the services I use.. can't tell you about Orkut, sorry) I know that they're audited for privacy and they agree to Safe Harbor laws and are one of the biggest supporters of Digital Due process.
Are they using information gathered by me and millions of other users to create targeted ads? Yes. Are they tracking me individually, selling my personal data to the highest bidder? No. (again, if you assert they are lying then everyone is lying, and we shouldn't use tech period)
For me, I've come to accept that if I'm doing something online, someone is getting my data. Thus far, Google's proven to be rather good stewards of it. Some of their would be competitors (notably facebook) have not.
You have more faith in the salesman of YOUR information? Why would I trust a company blindly. I wouldnt put all my eggs into the same basket? You sound like you trust the used cars salesman too.... How much peronal information would you trust a company to collect. There is always the aspect of specific individuals also working there. Do you trust them aswell so they dont read girls e-posts and molest them?
Have your read their privacy policies? Actually read them and not just what others say? Sure, you could argue that they are lying, but by that token you can't trust ANY company (Apple, etc) not to abuse the information you give them. I don't "blindly" trust Google. I keep up to date with their legal issues, and I've read their privacy policy (at least for the services I use.. can't tell you about Orkut, sorry) I know that they're audited for privacy and they agree to Safe Harbor laws and are one of the biggest supporters of Digital Due process.
Are they using information gathered by me and millions of other users to create targeted ads? Yes. Are they tracking me individually, selling my personal data to the highest bidder? No. (again, if you assert they are lying then everyone is lying, and we shouldn't use tech period)
For me, I've come to accept that if I'm doing something online, someone is getting my data. Thus far, Google's proven to be rather good stewards of it. Some of their would be competitors (notably facebook) have not.
Yes I have! Have you read the financial reports of Enron?
PS. dont blindly believe. You also have to question facts. Now there was a time i trusted Google but that time has passed a couple of years ago...
I might be able to chose not to use Android now, but I also had a chance of chosing my search engine, now that there is nothing even close to googles search engine where does that leave me? Five years later from now if the phone market looked like the search market? No thanks...
Yes I have! Have you read the financial reports of Enron?
PS. dont blindly believe. You also have to question facts. Now there was a time i trusted Google but that time has passed a couple of years ago...
I might be able to chose not to use Android now, but I also had a chance of chosing my search engine, now that there is nothing even close to googles search engine where does that leave me? Five years later from now if the phone market looked like the search market? No thanks...
So a question for you sir. Do you trust Facebook and Apple with the personal data they've gathered and stored about you? If so, what is the difference with Google?
Comments
People tend to pick dogs for any fight and it's a shame. I've certainly been guilty of it myself - back when the DoJ went after MS I was frankly rabid in my support and felt pissed that they never forced MS to split applications from OS. A few friends were pro-MS and it drove me nuts
We're into really interesting legal territory now because there are just so many issues at play, and so many players with dominance in different areas. In the US Google may very well be able to claim strong first amendment rights to order their search results any way they want, in the EU they could try the same with the convention on human rights -though that's far less likely to succeed. Apple's control over the App market on the iPhone is not unprecedented but is certainly eye catching. Amazon is using their tremendous retail presence to push their own products over competitors. Google's control over the Android platform is arguably now greater than anything MS ever had over the PC market, and their requirement of bundling Google location services over Skyhook is a carbon copy of the MS IE bundling - but worse because unlike IE the location services aren't free to the handset makers/carriers.
I think the big thing with the skyhook is that skyhook wanted EXCLUSIVE rights to location data gathered on the device, so if the phone had skyhook, google wouldn't get any of that data, which raises some interesting issues when it comes to Google maps, location advertising, etc. If this allegation was true, it would mean some serious rewrites.
Also, the Motorola phones were Droid branded, launching "With Google" which is what I think gave Google the real power here, even more than the threat to withold market access. Nothing is stopping Motorola from making a Skyhook android phone, (even today) but they can't put "with google" on the back, and they might not get market access, which would limit the usability of it for Carrier markets. I'd argue that if a companies name, logo, etc were placed on a device, they have the right to dictate terms for that device. (Much like Apple can do with the "made for ipod" logo, and how they can go after companies that use that logo illegally)
I'm personally not too worried about the 'dangerous precedent' argument. A lot of people felt the MS probe was a dangerous precedent, but without it we might very well not have Google at all today, maybe not even Apple.
What market is Apple abusing?
Music? They sell their music DRM free - there's no reason you can't sync it to an Android phone if you want to. Video? They're limited by their licensing agreements with the content providers - Force Majeure is a very strong defence.
They're selling their music DRM free now, but they still don't allow devices to sync directly with iTunes. Not saying there is anything wrong with this, but remember, the people bringing these charges will look for press even more than just looking for "hard" evicence (see government uproar about "location.")
Movies I understand. But what about how Apple uses their marketpower (an overwhelming number of purchases are made through iOS content stores) to dictate the terms of how companies deal with them, or possibly with others. Apple did try making it so content providers always had to give them the lowest price (IAP) but thankfully backed off of it.
The key will be Apps, where Apple both controls and competes in a market that it has a kinda-sorta monopoly. It's possible that the FTC could construe Apple as holding a monopoly in selling iOS applications, but frankly Apple could just divest themselves of the App Store and move the regulation of the iOS app market into some independent entity. They don't really need the control themselves so long as they make sure that the market is curated by somebody.
I think they DO need to control it. I can't see apple giving up control (outside of being ordered to) because Apple's who deal is selling an experience. Guiding the customer from end to end, working to optimize each part so that the customer has the best experience (assuming they like iOS) possible.Again, nothing "evil" about this inherently, just how they approach the business, an approach that is paying off rather well for them.
Anyway the FTC never investigated Nintendo or Sony over their control of their consoles markets, so it's hard to see how they would justify it in the case of Apple, unless Apple end up owning 80% of the handset market.
Consoles were always considered a "neat" toy, and hardly a commodity though. Digital media, and to a lesser extent "smart" devices would be considered a commodity. Sure, people can choose to get their CD's at Best Buy, but why bother when you can pick up the songs you want for just .99, or the entire album for sometimes 50% of the cost? Apple has a natural monopoly with this digital content. Sure, streaming services are starting to pop up here and there, but a lot of them are being held up in licensing because idiot record companies are afraid it will eat into their iTunes revenue (the same argument they used to avoid adopting itunes initially) not iTunes fault, per se, but it could be enough for some freshmen senator looking to get a press limelight.
Apple does control 80% of the PMP market, largely because of the tight integration between iTunes and iPod (and for making a device that hit all the right points for a consumer)
I'm not saying that there is a case against Apple or what apple is doing is "wrong" (I think most of it is just smart business) If it comes out that Google is actually manipulating search results to benefit their advertisers, or maliciously white/blacklisting etc, then I don't think it will set any precedent for Apple, at least as how everything stands.
The danger is if this whole thing is coming about because "More people use Google than anyone else, so since they are big we have to go after them for press" could be the first volley in the government trying (again) to involve itself more with the tech industry. One of the reasons tech is so big (and profitable) in the US is because the government has largely kept it's nose out of it, letting things develop naturally (compared to monitored markets) having the government come in and start dictating how companies should do business will be bad for everyone, no matter who the first target is, because they'll always choose a second.
It's so much more fun to debate the actual issues I really don't get why people feel the need to immediately get personal.
It's because they don't actually want to debate the issues. They want to see everything in black/white good/evil and refuse to acknowledge that the world is a lot more complicated than that.
You are exactly right here! Most people think it is easy to challenge Google in the search space that they got the monopoly by playing nice and free. But there is no free lunch and what mostly bothers me is that Google is not just search anymore. They make operating systems as an advertiser. Now thats creapy!
Google is the modern troijan horse that is just bending the line of whats considered legal. They will cross this line trust me. I dont understand why people are so trustworthy and naive of corporate policy(do no evil). All I see is google corporate greed!
We start with a nice search engine and suddenly the operating system is the same. 10 years ago they could know my searches. But now they might know every keypress I make and every password I have?!?! Where did Google start to assimilate everything??? They Keep bending the line about privacy and soon YOU will see that YOU have been poked in the backhole. What information would YOU classify as private enough for an advertiser not to own? Maybe your bank information? Your health records/medical records? Your habits? Your routes?
We are at the moment allmost past the point where it might be impossible to compete with Google.
Have your read their privacy policies? Actually read them and not just what others say? Sure, you could argue that they are lying, but by that token you can't trust ANY company (Apple, etc) not to abuse the information you give them. I don't "blindly" trust Google. I keep up to date with their legal issues, and I've read their privacy policy (at least for the services I use.. can't tell you about Orkut, sorry) I know that they're audited for privacy and they agree to Safe Harbor laws and are one of the biggest supporters of Digital Due process.
Are they using information gathered by me and millions of other users to create targeted ads? Yes. Are they tracking me individually, selling my personal data to the highest bidder? No. (again, if you assert they are lying then everyone is lying, and we shouldn't use tech period)
For me, I've come to accept that if I'm doing something online, someone is getting my data. Thus far, Google's proven to be rather good stewards of it. Some of their would be competitors (notably facebook) have not.
I have no idea what you just said.
I am not surprised at all.
For me, I've come to accept that if I'm doing something online, someone is getting my data. Thus far, Google's proven to be rather good stewards of it. Some of their would be competitors (notably facebook) have not.
That's a very good argument for a rational person, but Google's biggest problem is that fear isn't rational. If their customers start to fear them then no amount of PR or spin will be able to save them.
Let me give you an example from the past, back in the summer of 1997 Steve Jobs had returned to an Apple Computers that seemed in danger of imminently ceasing to exist. He wasn't yet CEO but he nevertheless gave a long Q&A session at the end of WWDC. John Gruber recently posted this on his blog and I think he was right to bring attention to it because it has some amazingly prescient stuff in it.
http://quietube.com/v.php/https://ww...?v=3LEXae1j6EY
Anyway early in the session a guy asks about how Apple is planning to convince customers that it is still in business, and asks why there aren't big TV spots or full page ads in papers declaring that Apple isn't going anywhere. Steve patiently explains that the more money Apple spends trying to convince people that it's still relevant the more it will risk appearing irrelevant, and that the best way for Apple to get good PR is for it to turn a profit. History proved him right.
Customer's fears could only be allayed by seeing hard evidence that Apple was a going concern, no amount of reassurance could convince them once fear had gotten entrenched.
Google has a similar problem, though opposite. The more money it makes, the more dominant it becomes and the more aggressively it plays in new markets the more its customers will fear it. Once that fear takes hold no amount of PR, no amount of policy statements, no amount of promises will convince customers. Fear like faith isn't amenable to reason. In fact after a certain tipping point is reached in trust levels the more that Google protests its innocence the more it will appear guilty.
Google, for its own good, really needs to stop trying to expand into every possible web service, but rather like MS they don't seem able to do that until somebody makes them.
... Google, for its own good, really needs to stop trying to expand into every possible web service, but rather like MS they don't seem able to do that until somebody makes them.
And the problem is that, just like Microsoft, it can't stop that. Just like at Microsoft, the need to dominate and control is ingrained into the corporate psyche. Just like at Microsoft, the idea that, "If Google does it, it isn't evil," pervades the corporate consciousness. And just like at Microsoft, they won't stop until someone makes them, and maybe not even then.
The problem with Google goes well beyond the level of the problem with Microsoft. Microsoft often engaged in unethical and sometimes illegal behavior, but, in comparison, in a sort of low key, behind the scenes way. Google, on the other hand, flagrantly violates the law on a massive scale and when it gets caught belligerently declares that it will keep doing so. (Exhibit A: the Google Books program, AKA, "steal this book, and that one, and that one, and that one, ...".) This idea that that they are above the law is what makes Google the bigger problem, and the entire company seems to have undergone a moral inversion: the conviction that one's cause is so just that any action is justified by it.
Google's goal is to become the gatekeeper to information. All information. They want to control your information through Google Mail, Docs, etc. They want to control the information you access through search and maps and other "offerings". And regardless of how well intentioned they could be (although they have demonstrated that they are not) that sort of control of information is an attack on freedom. Is there really any difference in the danger from state controlled access to information or corporate controlled access to information? I don't think so. Control and the potential for censorship of information is just as big a threat to freedom regardless of the identity of the gatekeeper.
Yet, potentially, the biggest, although related, problem with Google is the threat they pose to personal privacy, and this threat is two-fold. First, there's the threat that Google itself won't be content with treating the data they collect in an anonymous fashion.
In one sense, they already, certainly, effectively don't. Data from various sources is linked together creating a digital profile of virtually anyone who uses the Internet. Their whole system is essentially a giant dragnet designed to discover everything that can be about everyone, ostensibly for the purposes of advertising. They don't treat disparate bits of data anonymously at all, but go to great lengths to tag everything with personally identifiable information, all of which points to millions of specific individuals. In other words, there is no anonymity in Google's database.
All well and good you might say, if they were a company that demonstrated some degree of respect for privacy, ethics and the law. But, as they've demonstrated time and time again, they aren't that company. They are already using that data in personally identifiable ways, and, given the culture of the company, it's simply a matter of time until they begin to use it in flagrantly abusive ways.
The other side of this threat is that they have become a one-stop shop for governments to go to when they want either information on specific individuals, or data to mine looking for "suspicious activity. There are some indications, Google's close ties with the NSA, for example, that this is already going on on a fairly wide scale, but whether it is now or not, it's just too valuable a treasure trove of personal data for governments to pass up, even if Google had the best of intentions on its own.
A lot of people like to dismiss this sort of talk as "tin foil hat", but doing so simply shows an ignorance of the real issues and dangers. A lot of people like to say that there isn't any privacy on the Internet anyway, so what's the big deal, but the reason there isn't any privacy on the Internet is in large part because of Google, and the idea that we should just accept that as the way things are is ridiculously absurd. If there's no privacy on the Internet, then there's no freedom on the Internet, and as that lack of privacy spills into the rest of our lives, our freedom is slowly drained away until we have nothing left.
All of these things would be of concern even if Google had demonstrated themselves to be the most scrupulously ethical and well intentioned of companies. Unfortunately, they've demonstrated exactly the opposite, making the concern even greater.
The problem with Google goes well beyond the level of the problem with Microsoft. Microsoft often engaged in unethical and sometimes illegal behavior, but, in comparison, in a sort of low key, behind the scenes way. Google, on the other hand, flagrantly violates the law on a massive scale and when it gets caught belligerently declares that it will keep doing so. (Exhibit A: the Google Books program, AKA, "steal this book, and that one, and that one, and that one, ...".)
You should bring yourself up-to-date with this particular claim. You either don't know the whole story, or prefer your own interpretation.
Otherwise, yes you do tend to push tin-foil hats whenever you speak of Google. While there's always a hint of truth in most of your comments about Google, I'm glad you pointed out a few weeks back that you won't pretend to be fair in your posts about them.
You should bring yourself up-to-date with this particular claim. You either don't know the whole story, or prefer your own interpretation.
Otherwise, yes you do tend to push tin-foil hats whenever you speak of Google. While there's always a hint of truth in most of your comments about Google, I'm glad you pointed out a few weeks back that you won't pretend to be fair in your posts about them.
Google is stealing books. There is no "interpretation".
And, as I pointed out above, this only seems "tin foil hat" to those who are ignorant about the issues, or those, like you, being paid to promote Google's position. Also, I'm sure I said I wouldn't be balanced, or "fair and balanced", but that's not the same as being accurate about them, which I will be.
Google is stealing books. There is no "interpretation".
I've not heard this about Google Books, though I've not heard much about Google Books at all? Is there somewhere I can go to read up about it? I'm quite curious.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...42546135.shtml
More recently is their partnership with The British Library on scanning/preserving 250,000 out-of-copyright literary pieces.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/20/b...itize-250-000/
I've not heard this about Google Books, though I've not heard much about Google Books at all? Is there somewhere I can go to read up about it? I'm quite curious.
Why don't you just google "Google Books lawsuits"? The New York Times has covered it extensively, as have other media. You must not be keeping up with the news.
The problem with Google goes well beyond the level of the problem with Microsoft.
Oh boy, this is a huge post, and I'm gonna try to deal with the different points, but I'll say right from the start we have a very different perception of how evil google actually is.
Exhibit A: the Google Books program, AKA, "steal this book, and that one, and that one, and that one, ...".)
Google Books I would say is an incredible example of something that Google did right. There is a HUGE amount of literature out there that can't be searched because it is dead tree edition. Much of it is out of copyright, some wasn't but was nevertheless out of print. The publishing industry's objections to Google books were frankly insane, they didn't just object to the fact that in-copyright books were visible in their entirety - which is a copyright breach and google stopped doing - they also objected to pretty much everything else.
The publishing industry jealously defends content it no longer owns in much the same way that the music industry does. You'd be amazed how many CDs that cost £15 contain entirely public domain recordings.
My only regret is that Google books did such a relatively piss-poor job. Hopefully now that the legal issues are resolved things will improve and access to out of copyright or out of print books will be tremendously increased.
Is there really any difference in the danger from state controlled access to information or corporate controlled access to information?
Obviously yes, but there's also a huge difference between state controlled media and state supplied media. When people talk about state controlled access to media they are generally not referring to the BBC, a popular source of state supplied information for over a billion people around the world - but to places like China or worse North Korea, where the state actively denies people access to information. Google is thus far much more like the BBC than it is like Kim Jong Il. If Google were going about secretly censoring things then googling for articles criticizing Google would show up less relevant stuff than using Bing does - ironically the opposite is true.
Yet, potentially, the biggest, although related, problem with Google is the threat they pose to personal privacy, and this threat is two-fold. First, there's the threat that Google itself won't be content with treating the data they collect in an anonymous fashion.
Google have your search history, and if you use an anonymous browser - such as they one that they themselves supply - they don't even have that. The idea that they can directly link your searches to your name, address and waist size is just overblown. You think Google know you intimately? Imagine what Visa knows, or what firms like Experian know. Google is far from being the scariest firm in the privacy domain..
The other side of this threat is that they have become a one-stop shop for governments to go to when they want either information on specific individuals, or data to mine looking for "suspicious activity.
Google have a FAR better record in defending their users against the Feds than the carriers do. Enormously better. They've forced the Feds to take them to court to get the data on several occassions. Carriers have just meekly handed over data every single time. Which is why the carriers subsequently got Congress to pass a law retrospectively legitimizing their illegal supplying of data to the Feds.
All of these things would be of concern even if Google had demonstrated themselves to be the most scrupulously ethical and well intentioned of companies. Unfortunately, they've demonstrated exactly the opposite, making the concern even greater.
You are actually a great example of what I was talking about in my last post. Google has sunk so low in your trust now that nothing that they conceivably do could restore it. The more they attempt to convince you of their bone fides the more they will convince you otherwise. As of right now people like you are in the minority, but should you ever become the majority then it won't matter whether your beliefs are well founded or not - Google as a business will be finished.
... You are actually a great example of what I was talking about in my last post. Google has sunk so low in your trust now that nothing that they conceivably do could restore it. ...
Sure they could. They could start obeying the law and stop stealing intellectual property. They could respecting people's privacy and stop collecting personal identifying information on practically every site on the web. They could start trying to build a company based on creating rather than destroying. They could be honest and act with integrity rather than being deceitful and underhanded.
But I don't expect any of that to happen because their character at this point is set, and they don't know how to succeed any other way.
Oh boy, this is a huge post, and I'm gonna try to deal with the different points, but I'll say right from the start we have a very different perception of how evil google actually is.
Anonymouse equates Google with hitler/stalin/antichrist etc. It's pointless to try and tell him otherwise.
Google Books I would say is an incredible example of something that Google did right. There is a HUGE amount of literature out there that can't be searched because it is dead tree edition. Much of it is out of copyright, some wasn't but was nevertheless out of print. The publishing industry's objections to Google books were frankly insane, they didn't just object to the fact that in-copyright books were visible in their entirety - which is a copyright breach and google stopped doing - they also objected to pretty much everything else.
The publishing industry jealously defends content it no longer owns in much the same way that the music industry does. You'd be amazed how many CDs that cost £15 contain entirely public domain recordings.
My only regret is that Google books did such a relatively piss-poor job. Hopefully now that the legal issues are resolved things will improve and access to out of copyright or out of print books will be tremendously increased.
I'm hoping it gets better too. There are some older books I'm interested in (I like looking into the history of Coffee for example) but for whatever reason a lot of the books I find on Gbooks are just scanned documents (and thus harder to read) instead of clear form documents. I'm not sure if this is because of legal issues, or because of a breakdown in their software. That being said, I like that I can find out of print content on there, for free. Things like Project Gutenberg are wonderful, but I do a lot of reading on my tablet, and for that Google Books is far easier to navigate (and find the free content). On the Kindle, often the first results for this out of copyright work are the ones by publishers still wanting to charge for it. Google Books has a direct link to the free versions.
Obviously yes, but there's also a huge difference between state controlled media and state supplied media. When people talk about state controlled access to media they are generally not referring to the BBC, a popular source of state supplied information for over a billion people around the world - but to places like China or worse North Korea, where the state actively denies people access to information. Google is thus far much more like the BBC than it is like Kim Jong Il. If Google were going about secretly censoring things then googling for articles criticizing Google would show up less relevant stuff than using Bing does - ironically the opposite is true.
Also, Corporations generally are obligated to tell you how they use said information, and at least some knowledge of how they compile it. Governments are not.
Google have your search history, and if you use an anonymous browser - such as they one that they themselves supply - they don't even have that. The idea that they can directly link your searches to your name, address and waist size is just overblown. You think Google know you intimately? Imagine what Visa knows, or what firms like Experian know. Google is far from being the scariest firm in the privacy domain..
I actually think he's referring to the fact that someone can use google to connect your Facebook/Linkedin/twitter profiles even if you never intentionally linked them. The problem with this argument is that it is the user's fault for making enough information publicly available (eg, open to search bots) that people can make the connection. It's like complaining that someone figured out where you worked because you kept taking pictures of yourself at work and showing it off to people.
Google works by finding information across the web and condensing it into something approaching relevance. It's how all search engines function, Google's just better at it than most. If you don't want people to connect who you are, then don't make that information public. Privacy is the responsibility of the individual, though Facebook having the habit of resetting your preferences whenever they update is certainly a problem. Google's not "building your digital profile" you are. I never got the "Google should stop being so good because people found me by searching for me" argument.
Google have a FAR better record in defending their users against the Feds than the carriers do. Enormously better. They've forced the Feds to take them to court to get the data on several occassions. Carriers have just meekly handed over data every single time. Which is why the carriers subsequently got Congress to pass a law retrospectively legitimizing their illegal supplying of data to the Feds.
Yep, I really like this video on the concept of "Digital Due Process": http://youtu.be/AYYjr3XNaGs
Also, their Data liberation front (working to make all the information you have in their ecosystem portable, along with instructions on how to remove it)
You are actually a great example of what I was talking about in my last post. Google has sunk so low in your trust now that nothing that they conceivably do could restore it. The more they attempt to convince you of their bone fides the more they will convince you otherwise. As of right now people like you are in the minority, but should you ever become the majority then it won't matter whether your beliefs are well founded or not - Google as a business will be finished.
I don't think it's anything Google did specifically, just the fact that they exist, and that they do search was enough for him to hate them. he frequently mentions how they've shown "complete disregard" for personal privacy. But when pressed, he'll mention only the Google Books issue and The Streetview/unprotected wifi issue. (which an independent third party auditor cleared them of). He's stuck on those two issues, and the potential that they "Might" do something in the future because he doesn't trust their privacy policy.
Anonymouse equates Google with hitler/stalin/antichrist etc. It's pointless to try and tell him otherwise. ...
Your post is so full of misrepresentations and outright lies that it's hard to know where to even start. But, just to touch on a couple of points where you are particularly deceptive and misleading...
1. Let's stop pretending that the Google Books program is about scanning out of copyright books like Project Gutenberg. It's not, and I'm certain you know it's not. It's about scanning everything with complete disregard for copyright -- i.e., about flagrant theft of intellectual property in many cases. If it were as you represented it, there would not be lawsuits over it. Stop being dishonest.
2. I have in many posts here pointed out dozens of ways that Google violates personal privacy, not the least of which is through its Analytics program. So, again, your post is blatant dishonesty, which doesn't surprise me, since they pay you to lie for them.
Sure they could. They could start obeying the law and stop stealing intellectual property. They could respecting people's privacy and stop collecting personal identifying information on practically every site on the web. They could start trying to build a company based on creating rather than destroying. They could be honest and act with integrity rather than being deceitful and underhanded.
But I don't expect any of that to happen because their character at this point is set, and they don't know how to succeed any other way.
They are obeying the law and not stealing intellectual property. Do you have proof otherwise?
And they are acting with integrity rather than being deceitful and underhanded. Again, do you have examples that serve as prove otherwise? When you're not spreading FUD about Google, many of your posts make a lot of sense and add information to benefit other forum members. For some reason Google really chafes you to the point that wild, over-the-top accusations fly from your fingertips.
Some true and factual examples other than "Anonymouse says" would help if you're trying to convince us of Google's evil ways.
They are obeying the law and not stealing intellectual property. Do you have proof otherwise?
And they are acting with integrity rather than being deceitful and underhanded. Again, do you have examples that serve as prove otherwise? When you're not spreading FUD about Google, many of your posts make a lot of sense and add information to benefit other forum members. For some reason Google really chafes you to the point that wild, over-the-top accusations fly from your fingertips.
Some true and factual examples other than "Anonymouse says" would help if you're trying to convince us of Google's evil ways.
He doesn't have facts. He'll always point to things he's said "In the past" but in reality all he'll do is reply to practically Every post with the same meaningless raging he just replied to mine (assuming this is a full quote of the post he made) he'll say something along the lines of "it's obvious Google does this" you ask for proof and the ONLY time he brings something up is if it is the Google Streetview or books, often where he won't link to anything, just give his own opinion on the matter and expect you to accept it as fact.
When you call this into question, you immediately become a "Google Astroturfer" and then he'll use that to justify never responding directly to your questions (not that he ever does)
They are obeying the law and not stealing intellectual property. Do you have proof otherwise? ...
He doesn't have facts. ...)
You know you're on the right track when the Google shills start tag teaming on you.
Have your read their privacy policies? Actually read them and not just what others say? Sure, you could argue that they are lying, but by that token you can't trust ANY company (Apple, etc) not to abuse the information you give them. I don't "blindly" trust Google. I keep up to date with their legal issues, and I've read their privacy policy (at least for the services I use.. can't tell you about Orkut, sorry) I know that they're audited for privacy and they agree to Safe Harbor laws and are one of the biggest supporters of Digital Due process.
Are they using information gathered by me and millions of other users to create targeted ads? Yes. Are they tracking me individually, selling my personal data to the highest bidder? No. (again, if you assert they are lying then everyone is lying, and we shouldn't use tech period)
For me, I've come to accept that if I'm doing something online, someone is getting my data. Thus far, Google's proven to be rather good stewards of it. Some of their would be competitors (notably facebook) have not.
You have more faith in the salesman of YOUR information? Why would I trust a company blindly. I wouldnt put all my eggs into the same basket? You sound like you trust the used cars salesman too.... How much peronal information would you trust a company to collect. There is always the aspect of specific individuals also working there. Do you trust them aswell so they dont read girls e-posts and molest them?
http://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-goo...spied-on-chats
And the last question would you let the goat watch over your cabbageland or would you chose eg a lawyer?
Have your read their privacy policies? Actually read them and not just what others say? Sure, you could argue that they are lying, but by that token you can't trust ANY company (Apple, etc) not to abuse the information you give them. I don't "blindly" trust Google. I keep up to date with their legal issues, and I've read their privacy policy (at least for the services I use.. can't tell you about Orkut, sorry) I know that they're audited for privacy and they agree to Safe Harbor laws and are one of the biggest supporters of Digital Due process.
Are they using information gathered by me and millions of other users to create targeted ads? Yes. Are they tracking me individually, selling my personal data to the highest bidder? No. (again, if you assert they are lying then everyone is lying, and we shouldn't use tech period)
For me, I've come to accept that if I'm doing something online, someone is getting my data. Thus far, Google's proven to be rather good stewards of it. Some of their would be competitors (notably facebook) have not.
Yes I have! Have you read the financial reports of Enron?
PS. dont blindly believe. You also have to question facts. Now there was a time i trusted Google but that time has passed a couple of years ago...
I might be able to chose not to use Android now, but I also had a chance of chosing my search engine, now that there is nothing even close to googles search engine where does that leave me? Five years later from now if the phone market looked like the search market? No thanks...
Yes I have! Have you read the financial reports of Enron?
PS. dont blindly believe. You also have to question facts. Now there was a time i trusted Google but that time has passed a couple of years ago...
I might be able to chose not to use Android now, but I also had a chance of chosing my search engine, now that there is nothing even close to googles search engine where does that leave me? Five years later from now if the phone market looked like the search market? No thanks...
So a question for you sir. Do you trust Facebook and Apple with the personal data they've gathered and stored about you? If so, what is the difference with Google?