Google Bombs Privacy Test

[Havelock]

So Google's privacy practices suck:

Originally Posted by CNN

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Google Inc.'s privacy practices are the worst among the Internet's top destinations, according to a watchdog group seeking to intensify the recent focus on how the online search leader handles personal information about its users.

In a report released Saturday, London-based Privacy International assigned Google its lowest possible grade. The category is reserved for companies with "comprehensive consumer surveillance and entrenched hostility to privacy."

None of the 22 other surveyed companies -- a group that included Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and AOL -- sunk to that level, according to Privacy International.

While a number of other Internet companies have troubling policies, none comes as close to Google to "achieving status as an endemic threat to privacy," Privacy International said in an explanation of its findings.

In a statement from one of its lawyers, Google said it aggressively protects its users' privacy and stands behind its track record. In its most conspicuous defense of user privacy, Google last year successfully fought a U.S. Justice Department subpoena demanding to review millions of search requests.

"We are disappointed with Privacy International's report, which is based on numerous inaccuracies and misunderstandings about our services," said Nicole Wong, Google's deputy general counsel.

"It's a shame that Privacy International decided to publish its report before we had an opportunity to discuss our privacy practices with them."

Privacy International contacted Google earlier this month, but didn't receive a response, said Simon Davies, the group's director.

The scathing report is just the latest strike aimed at Google's privacy practices.

An independent European panel recently opened an inquiry into whether Google's policies abide by Europe's privacy rules.

Meanwhile, three consumer groups in the United States are pressuring the nation's regulators to make Google change some of its privacy policies as part of its proposed $3.1 billion acquisition of online ad service DoubleClick Inc., which also tracks Web surfers' behavior.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is looking into antitrust concerns raised by the DoubleClick deal, but has not indicated if privacy issues will be part of the inquiry.

Hoping to placate its critics, Google has pledged to begin erasing the information about users' search requests within 18 to 24 months.

The company says it stockpiles data to help its search engine better understand its users so it can deliver more relevant results and advertisements.

As Google becomes more knowledgeable about the people relying on its search engine and other free services, management hopes to develop more tools that recommend activities and other pursuits that might appeal to individual users.

Privacy International is particularly troubled by Google's ability to match data gathered by its search engine with information collected from other services such as e-mail, instant messaging and maps.

"Under the microscope, it turns out that Google is doing much more with our data than we ever imagined," Davies said.

Privacy International, which was founded in 1990, said it reached its preliminary findings after spending the past six months reviewing Internet privacy practices with the help of about 30 professors, mostly in the United States and United Kingdom. The group plans to update the report in September.

Seven of the Internet companies and Web sites included in Privacy International's analysis received the second lowest grade of "substantial and comprehensive privacy threats." This group included: Time Warner Inc.'s AOL, Apple Inc., Facebook.com, Hi5.com, Reunion.com, Microsoft's Windows Live Space and Yahoo.

None of the companies or sites received Privacy International's top grade, but five rated as "generally privacy-aware." They were: BBC, eBay Inc., Last.fm, LiveJournal.com, and Wikipedia.com.

[Phelps McManus]

What better way to advertise your service and force companies to lend credibility to your "standards" than to publicly out one of the leading internet firms. Obviously they didn't have the balls to try it on Microsoft. Google was their best choice.

"Under the microscope, it turns out that Google is doing much more with our data than we ever imagined," Davies said.

Oh noes! Not more than I ever imagined! I can imagine my ISP holding much more sensitive data like what I look at once I am linked off of Google and tied to my name and address. I can imagine retailers selling my name and address to mailing lists. This Davies guy is right; I can't imagine what the fuck Google is going to do with my search histories that I should be concerned about.

I came here expecting to read about security holes giving hackers access to my gmail account or some trojan coming across my iGoogle home page. Instead I am fed an advertisement for Privacy International, a company I have never heard of before.

I wonder if "entrenched hostility" was Google telling them to "fuck off" which (according to the rules) warrants their lowest score.

[Kolle]

hm well they'll discover that i like porn and um...yeah porn. that's basically what i have the internet for.

[Vorph]

Originally Posted by Phelps McManus

What better way to advertise your service and force companies to lend credibility to your "standards" than to publicly out one of the leading internet firms. Obviously they didn't have the balls to try it on Microsoft. Google was their best choice.

Why not Microsoft?

The finding that Microsoft is a better privacy performer than Google is also likely to be contentious. Microsoft was awarded "orange" status, two bands better than Google's position. However it is important, for the sake of clarity, to note that Windows Live Space received the more negative "red" rating, while Google's Orkut avoided a black rating and was awarded red status.

The true difference between Google Inc and Microsoft Corp can be defined not so much by the data practices and privacy policies that exist between the two organizations, but by the corporate ethos and leadership exhibited by each. Five years ago Microsoft could reasonably be described as a fundamental danger to privacy. In more recent times the organization appears to have adopted a less antagonistic attitude to privacy, and has at least structurally adjusted to the challenge of creating a privacy-friendly environment.

It is true that even during this more recent period there have been notable privacy disasters, particularly with WGA. It is equally true that Microsoft has failed to achieve the level of transparency that it proclaims to embrace (for example in withholding the length of time that data is retained). These instances have been compounded by a failure of oversight and management. However Microsoft has at least put in place the beginnings of a framework for responsible privacy practice and has created a corporate vision, cloudy though it may be. The organization appears now to be particularly sensitive in the most part to privacy issues and some parts of Microsoft have even pursued the concept of privacy as a market differentiator. We have no evidence that Google has achieved this level of awareness or development.

However we are aware that – in the words of the executives – "ad space is now the only game in town," and with Microsoft needing to play catch-up with Google there is a real threat that the organization could abandon privacy reforms in favor of ad revenue - or at least divert funds away from real protection and toward PR. The 2008 rankings will identify whether this fear will be realized.

I came here expecting to read about security holes giving hackers access to my gmail account or some trojan coming across my iGoogle home page. Instead I am fed an advertisement for Privacy International, a company I have never heard of before.

They aren't a 'company' and they've been around for going on 20 years. They also aren't advertising any service either, they're just a non-profit organization similar to the EFF.

I wonder if "entrenched hostility" was Google telling them to "fuck off" which (according to the rules) warrants their lowest score.

They are hardly the only group concerned with Google's practices, the pending purchase of Doubleclick, etc. I thought it was clear to pretty much everyone that Google's "Do No Evil" policy had long since been cast aside.

[Phelps McManus]

Originally Posted by Vorph

They aren't a 'company' and they've been around for going on 20 years. They also aren't advertising any service either, they're just a non-profit organization similar to the EFF.

Non-profit status is sometimes a racket. How large is Director Davies' non-profit salary (including bonus)?

The article you posted about MS vs Google only emphasized how arbitrary these "standards" are. I just really hate to see someone level an accusation that costs the target financially at no cost to the accuser (simple statement to the AP).

I thought it was clear to pretty much everyone that Google's "Do No Evil" policy had long since been cast aside.

Well, it wasn't clear. I like the conext ads that Google pioneered. It makes a lot of "free" internet content possible and is much less intrusive than popups. What actions from Google are you construing as evil?

If you think it is wrong, fine. Go Ask Jeeves or something instead of using Google. I don't need protection from some agenda-pushing liberal looking to secure his "job".

[Kiroy]

I agree with Phelps.

If google wants to know what I'm doing when I'm using it's FREE service, and then goes out of it's way to tailor advertising to my wants and needs, then what the fuck? Making my life easier.

How is this evil?

[Vorph]

GMail is the main thing I have a problem with, because of how they make it difficult to delete messages (and even then they don't really delete anything off their server) and the way they try to tailor ads to the content of emails you receive. I don't care if it's automated, it's just wrong... and it's only going to get much worse once they own Doubleclick.

I don't use GMail anymore, but I still use the search engine. I also use a mozilla addon and several Greasemonkey scripts in order to fight their ability to keep a profile on me. I consider any company where those kinds of measures are necessary to protect privacy to be 'evil'.

I'm not saying MS or Yahoo or most other companies are much better; I just agree with the Privacy International people that Google is the worst and I would love to see the FTC block their purchase of Doubleclick.

[Kugbok_Fennin]

Originally Posted by Phelps McManus

What better way to advertise your service and force companies to lend credibility to your "standards" than to publicly out one of the leading internet firms. Obviously they didn't have the balls to try it on Microsoft. Google was their best choice.

"Under the microscope, it turns out that Google is doing much more with our data than we ever imagined," Davies said.

Oh noes! Not more than I ever imagined! I can imagine my ISP holding much more sensitive data like what I look at once I am linked off of Google and tied to my name and address. I can imagine retailers selling my name and address to mailing lists. This Davies guy is right; I can't imagine what the fuck Google is going to do with my search histories that I should be concerned about.

I came here expecting to read about security holes giving hackers access to my gmail account or some trojan coming across my iGoogle home page. Instead I am fed an advertisement for Privacy International, a company I have never heard of before.

I wonder if "entrenched hostility" was Google telling them to "fuck off" which (according to the rules) warrants their lowest score.

Creating a detailed profile of your internet use and habits. There are plenty of people who pay good money to have that type of data collected.

[Phelps McManus]

Originally Posted by Kugbok_Fennin

Creating a detailed profile of your internet use and habits. There are plenty of people who pay good money to have that type of data collected.

Something has to pay the bills. I am trying to think of what someone can do with this data and none of it seems to impact me negatively.

Do you remember the web before search engines? I do. I remember seeing books, similar to the yellow pages, sold at Books-a-million that allowed you to look up web pages by category.

Do you like slow search engines, or perhaps ones that get fooled by porn/phishing pages that falsify keywords to rig searches? I sure don't, and I understand that that servers and development cost a lot of money.

How about this non-profit company go and setup their own, privacy-friendly search engine and they can charge people who are concerned about their privacy to stay afloat. Meanwhile, I will use free Google and live with the consequences of my own informed choice.

[torrent495]

Originally Posted by Kiroy

I agree with Phelps.

If google wants to know what I'm doing when I'm using it's FREE service, and then goes out of it's way to tailor advertising to my wants and needs, then what the fuck? Making my life easier.

How is this evil?

It's not, if you don't care about your privacy. Which I don't and most people don't.

Some people do, though.

[tjac]

Originally Posted by Vorph

GMail is the main thing I have a problem with, because of how they make it difficult to delete messages (and even then they don't really delete anything off their server)

^^^ this is so huge, and it's lost on all of the public despite being fairly easy to spot in the privacy policy:
You may organize or delete your messages through your Gmail account or terminate your account through the Google Account section of Gmail settings. Such deletions or terminations will take immediate effect in your account view. Residual copies of deleted messages and accounts may take up to 60 days to be deleted from our active servers and may remain in our offline backup systems.

It's a huge command of information that Google ends up having. What honesty is there having a delete function that never results in actual deletion?

I use gmail, but I don't really have any secrets or anything to protect. If I needed to have such a discrete conversation, I wouldn't do it in any digital medium.

[Geaux]

you mean they have offline backups of all my porn registration emails i've deleted?!

oh the humanity!

[Vorph]

I don't understand why more people don't take online privacy seriously. To me Google storing copies of GMail messages indefinitely is just as bad as if Verizon was recording every phone call I made and storing those for posterity too. It shouldn't matter what the content is, whether the service is 'free' or not, etc.

[Kiroy]

Originally Posted by Vorph

I don't understand why more people don't take online privacy seriously. To me Google storing copies of GMail messages indefinitely is just as bad as if Verizon was recording every phone call I made and storing those for posterity too. It shouldn't matter what the content is, whether the service is 'free' or not, etc.

Except we pay to use our cell phones. How much was your last gmail bill?

[Phelps McManus]

Going through all of the backups to remove every last trace of your deleted emails sounds like a logistical (expensive) nightmare. All incurred by a feature that 98% of your user base is happy exists. I would be much more pissed off if they lost my emails.