WSJ: Google 'agonizing' over user privacy, 'vision document' suggests selling data
By Nilay Patel 
posted August 10th 2010 1:41PM
posted August 10th 2010 1:41PM
It was just last week that the Wall Street Journal reported Microsoft's decision to limit private browsing in IE8 as part of its ongoing series on online privacy, and today the focus is on Google, which is said be "agonizing" over the balance between user privacy and advertising opportunities. It's a long piece that you should read in full, but essentially the WSJ claims that Larry Page and Sergey Brin have gone from strictly forbidding any efforts to track users online to a more subtle interpretation of their famous "don't be evil" motto which allows them to leverage user data and sell finely targeted ads without "exploiting customers." According to the WSJ, the change in attitude came with the rise of upstart ad firms that lacked Google's scruples and the search giant's purchase of DoubleClick, which led to Google's first use of cookies. What's more, once at Google, former DoubleClick exec Aitan Weinberg produced a seven-page "vision document" that outlined several strategies to profit from user data, ranging from building a "trading platform" for user data to allowing users to pay directly and get rid of ads all together. (Google says the document was for "brainstorming" and that some of the proposals are "complete non-starters.")The WSJ also says Google's working hard on that rumored social networking service to go head-to-head with Facebook, complete with a "like" button it can put across the web to build an even better profile of your likes and dislikes, and that the company is considering mixing user data from across services like Gmail and Google Checkout to make those profiles even deeper, all while trying to balance privacy, security, and legal interests. This balance appears to be causing significant tension between everyone at Google, Larry and Sergey included: the WSJ says the two founders have had shouting matches over things like selling "interest-based" ads, and that Sergey has been more reluctant than Larry to take advantage of user data. Like we said, it's a good read, so hit the source link and get to it.
Yet another argument for Ad-Block Plus plug ins.
It's really a no brainer...
@maxxorz
Come on guys... Did any of you ever paid for any Google services? Did Google Ad ever been annoying?
Let them earn to develop even greater services...
@kirill
All ads are annoying. Especially Google's. At least with TV commercials, I can get a modicum of enjoyment out of some. Google ads are just boring, and yet, still annoying.
@kirill Well said sir.
to quote Kevin Rose on this subject: "People always forget that they get it for free"
A little ad here and there is not too much to ask for a wealth of free services.
@Maxpower57
Then they should at least disclose that they are gathering data.
Put a big banner on top of the webpage.
If they did that kind of full disclosure, I would be perfectly fine with it.
@maxxorz it's not google fault, if you don't read the term of use.
@maxxorz
They should, and they do. but there's no reason for them to make it obnoxiously apparent. None of the information they would use would be personally compromising, and its completely reasonable for them to use it to better target ads.
Google will be a different company if the founders ever leave. Then the internet will only be ads based on scouring your computer's hard drive. But at least Android will still be free...
@1mc
No ToS on the Google Main Page.
There is a Privacy page, yes.
But that's like putting the information that a company now owns your soul in the EULA. It's an unreasonable expectation to think that the average layman would read it.
Listen. As annoying as they may be, I'm not in contention about Google giving people ads on what they search for.
My problem is that they are gearing up to create a dossier on everyone who visits their site, to give to ad agencies.
B T Dubs, On Google's privacy page, they say they want to make sure that the data collection process is transparent. So yeah. A huge banner telling what's up would be right up their alley.
Apparently you didn't read the Privacy Policy either.
@maxxorz It always surprises me how people jump to Google's aid.
Think of your favourite vilified company (Microsoft? Walmart? Starbucks?). Do you really think Google are any better? Newsflash: their shareholders say not.
It's been said before, but plagarise: 'don't do evil' leaves a lot of scope.
@maxxorz Google has every right to use the information that YOU provide them with, and the if the layman cares enough about it then he can read the privacy page where Google clearly lays out what they're doing with the information. That's what it means to be "transparent"
What you're asking for sounds more along the lines of "blatantly transparent", which is just unreasonable.
@Maxpower57
I did not give them the information. They took it. There is a difference. Google seems to be a huge proponent of the "Opt-Out" service, as opposed to the "Opt-In". I mean, fuck. Look at the Google Buzz fiasco.
Try to spin that fuck up in a positive light.
@maxxorz
And how exactly did they take this information?
was there a break in at your house?
@Maxpower57
If they do not present the ToS to you when you first use a website, then they can't have implied consent. There is a reason that all software installers have to present the EULA *before* you use the product.
@maxxorz
They don't have do do anything actually. The EULA is provided before you install software for the company's own copyright proprietary reasons. It has nothing to do with user privacy. Google letting you know what they're doing is almost entirely for your benefit only.
@maxxorz FTA: "allowing users to pay directly and get rid of ads all together"
Nice fucking attitude, Google. It's like selling some form of "protection".
"I will kick your ass and take your money every single day. But if you pay me $500 a month you can get rid of the beatings altogether." Fucking cock-holes.
@maxxorz
... running on an open-source browser like Firefox. Chrome and Safari can be as fast as they want: I'm not interested in saving milliseconds at the expense of privacy.
DOLLARS will ALWAYS win over PRIVACY.
Just look at RIM now folding to provide privacy details of their users so as to not loose dollars. Google had already rolled over in China to not loose any more market share at the cost of human rights.
MAKE MONEY, then do no evil. The priorities are at odds.
Big business will continue in this direction as time goes on.
Well let's be honest; Google is in the business of collecting and processing general (and sometimes more specific) data. The fact that they're looking at how to profit from all their work isn't really too surprising.
@paul34
I expect them to profit...and they do; but "balance between user privacy and advertising opportunities" shouldn't be agonizing. The banner(s) they show me based on scanning my email is good enough -- no need to collect/reference more data for an even better banner.
@paul34
No, what's surprising is that people will sell something as valuable as their privacy so very cheaply. Some people, apparently, even think it's normal to do so.
can i haz fast internet?
@EnergyPigeon
I can Haz fast internet? There.....
and people think facebook is bad. just wait for google to control your social network, your phone, your web usage, you email, your docs.
Talk about skynet.
@LSE +1
@LSE It's interesting to see over the years how Google transformed from a homely underdog to the growing evil that it is today.
@LSE Can I get a "FUCK THAT"?
I don't want one single company to control that much data and traffic. I use Google for about 30% of searches (Bing other 70%), and don't use many of their online services.
@Darkroom
That's what Hitler said to the French...
@LSE
You also forgot TV . . .
@Dest IBM anyone? or should I say HAL?
These bastards are collecting personal and browsing data and reselling it to ad firms.
Fuck Google.
@Sea Urchin you poor thing...................now STFU!
@Juggernaut408
Wow. Way to white knight for an advertising company.
Seriously. Fuck Google. We are just in a habit of using google for search, but I'm changing my default search to bing. I know. Laughter all around. But its really a good service. Have you tried bind.com/travel? That thing kicks ass over any web service google offers. OK, I'm not getting a hotmail account or using IE, but I'm not going to support Googles anti neutrality and user data mining.
@nsfw You sir, are grossly misinformed on this subject.
@nsfw
This x1000. Changed my search provider to Bing last week after the news about Verizon and Google's pow-wow.
It's not that I'm against them making money. It's the simple fact that, as stated, their mantra from the beginning was 'don't be evil' and now they could care less about privacy and what's good for the consumer if it affects their bottom line.
@grayskul who said that selling your personal information is evil(tm).
@grayskul lol you didn't like the 'don't be evil' mantra then mosied over to MS.
@fpad77
Yeah, I know. But I've never thought Microsoft to be the white knight of the industry.
@grayskul
Bingo... I also switched over to Bing a couple of weeks ago. I don't find the search as good as google's but at least I'm not feeding an "Evil" company with my private info. Google got too big too fast and they need to be put back in their place.
@nsfw do astroturfs invade engadget now?
@Altivec I've been doing some side-by-side searches lately between Google and Bing; for my favorite topics the two are usually identical down to at least the fourth or fifth link.
Google is probably still better for obscure searches by virtue of the sheer immense volume of historical data they've collected, but aside from that the discrepancy in relevance seems to be gone. Most of what remains is just habit and favoritism ... "oh, Google's results are just better." Well, no. Not so much.
@Altivec @grayskul It's obvious that you are both Apple users without having to look in your post history.
@grayskul The difference is Microsoft got humbled about ten years ago. Google has spent those same ten years being told they can do no wrong by Wall Street and the tech blogs. Google isn't used to being administered a harsh dose of any kind of reality.
@grayskul
I always laugh when I hear that don't be evil mantra. Google isn't a not a non-profit, they are business that makes money off of it's users. Why don't people see that Google is and will be the biggest, unchecked, monopoly in the history of mankind? I guess it's OK if it's the company you like huh? I mean it's incredible what they have done but I make it an active point not to do everything through them.
I just can't trust one company to have all of my information. I'd rather have it split up among competing companies. The way things ended up I'm using Bing for search, Yahoo for mail, and Google Docs.
@fpad77
Apple? That's funny. Thank you for the laugh.
@fpad77
You guessed right for me. I do prefer Mac over PC but I don't get your point. What does me choosing a Microsoft service over a Google service have to do with Apple? All that does is reinforce how impartial I am because I am actually supporting Microsoft.
What does Google using their "do no evil" mantra to fool people into gathering their information have to do with me using a Mac or a PC?
Even if you believe Google has good intentions at this time, what happens when the board changes over and they have all this info on you. No company should have this much power. As others have mentioned, I am trying to spread my use in multiple places.
What amazes me is not the fact that the allure of billions of dollars could cause a person to make some morally hazardous shortcuts, but that it tempts those who *already have billions of dollars!!!* How much more money do these people need? Isn't the goodwill that comes from wearing the White Hat worth something that their amoral counterparts don't have? While I am amazed, I am not surprised.
@RyanLN
The point of business is to grow it, not to say "this is good enough" and just stop. If any of the leaders of the past had said that, we'd still be walking through poop-filled fields, laboring for our lord who lives in his castle.
@paul34
Yeah, but at least our poop filled fields wouldn't be tracking our poop filled interests.