Google balances privacy, reach

(continued from previous page)

identifiable information. For example, Google does not correlate Gmail accounts with users' searches.

Google's Desktop Search, an application that lets users search for personal files and Web history stored locally on their computer, also created a stir when it was launched last year. Privacy advocates worried that someone with access to a user's computer could easily search for sensitive data.

A free version of Google's Desktop Search for businesses has an option that allows users to require a password to access it. The free consumer version of it does not.

Other privacy concerns were raised with Google's Web Accelerator, downloadable software for broadband users that was designed to speed access to Web pages by serving up cached or compressed copies of Web sites from Google's servers. However, the service does not really retain any more data than a user's Internet service provider can.

Underpinning many of the privacy concerns is the longevity of Google's data retention.

The log files created during Web searches, and which don't personally identify the user, are kept for as long as the data "is useful," Wong said. She did not give any time frame or elaborate.

"Overall, the issues with Google are not any different from the issues you have with Yahoo, Microsoft and others."

--Danny Sullivan, editor, Search Engine Watch

Google is able to link log file data, cookies and Google accounts to help it identify attempts to manipulate Web site ranking on its search pages, help track down originators of denial-of-service attacks against Web sites, and provide improvements to services in general, Wong said.

Concerned Googlers can either choose not to register for Google services or use two browsers, one for their Web searches and another for Gmail and other Google services.

For the more paranoid there are anonymizing proxy networks, such as the EFF's Tor, that bounce Internet communication through a series of routers that encrypt and decrypt it so that the origination and destination cannot be traced.

"Before you Google for something, think about whether you want that on your permanent record," Bankston advised. "If not, don't Google, or take steps so the search can't be tied back to you."

Google is no DoubleClick
In fairness, the level of anxiety hasn't come close to what online ad network DoubleClick faced in the late 1990s. DoubleClick became the subject of a Federal Trade Communication lawsuit for its attempt to combine offline and online consumer data. It settled federal and state suits and eventually phased out its Internet ad profiling service.

In a question-and-answer session during Google's media day in May Schmidt addressed the trade-off between privacy issues and offering better services.

"Our general philosophy on those things is very much to allow people to opt in," Schmidt said. "There are always options to not use that set of technology and remain anonymous with respect to the functionality that you're using on Google."

Gartner analyst Allen Weiner opined: "Overall, I think the privacy concerns are probably overblown."

Search engines have reached a plateau in their ability to serve up the best results, Weiner said, adding that tracking users' ongoing searches will lead to improvements.

"Have search engines gotten to the point where they have developed enough trust with consumers in order to get them to give up some of their privacy?" he asked rhetorically. "At some point there's a leap of faith that needs to occur."

And it's not as though Google is the only company asking Web surfers to make that leap, said Danny Sullivan editor of Search Engine Watch. "Overall, the issues with Google are not any different from the issues you have with Yahoo, Microsoft and others. They tend to get singled out, and unfairly, in my view," Sullivan said. "They're the biggest, and they make a big target for someone to take a swing at. It's not that the issues are not important. It's that they are applicable to the search industry" as a whole.

Trust is the key. As software industry analyst Stephen O'Grady wrote in his Tecosystems blog late last year: "Google is nearing a crossroads in determining its future path. They can take the Microsoft fork--and face the same scrutiny Microsoft does, or they can learn what the folks from Redmond have: Trust is hard to earn, easy to lose and nearly impossible to win back."

[gthurman]

Google mode presents new business model

While some people scream privacy, some of us prefer 'publicy'. We pay our bills on time, we respect others, we don't break laws. If Google collects data with a similar code of ethics, they could perform 'subsciption screening' so we receive notice of things of interest from >reputable< companies.

[Collants]

Somebody's Watching Me

This article reminds me of an eighties song by Rockwell...

"I always feel that somebody's watchin' me
Is it just a dream?"

.... No, it's an Internet Search Engine.

"I always feel like somebody's watching me
I can't enjoy my tea!"

[spongeman57]

Poor journalism

CNET blew it big time with this story, in two ways.

First, it equated information accessible via the Internet with information published in an article that will be read by millions. There is an important distinction between pointing out the accessibility of information, and publishing that information. The Google search engine is just a tool to find information which is already out there. This tool can be used for good or for evil. CNET just demonstrated the latter. It was grossly irresponsible journalism, and should be condemned by journalists everywhere. Didn't you learn anything from Maureen O'Gara's mistake?

Secondly, the whole point of the article was information that Google may be collecting and storing in their private inaccessible archives. While this may be an interesting topic, it is orthogonal to the public accessibility today of information on the Internet, which Google's search engines may make easier to find. The author seems to be confusing and mingling the two separate issues.

[richards1052]

sorry but you miss the point

Once the information is accessible to Google it is PUBLIC INFORMATION. The reporter certainly did nothing wrong in publishing information about Schmidt. There isn't anything preventing anyone in the world from doing precisely what she's done.

Your skin seems as thin as Schmidt's.

[Patriot]

Here Here

I found it hard to read the whole article because i knew what the writer was getting at, he/she was trying to have a swing at google, it was quite obvious and i still don't understand why.

They have Un-personal identifiable information, they have words that we have searched for, and i might elaborate on words... millions of words, that would take all of Google's staff months just to see what we have searched for let alone find out what our 'beliefs, religion' and etc.

i find this article quite upsetting coming from Cnet as Cnet has always published top notch reporting up until this piece of reporting, using really lame lines to make it seem google are trying to avoid answering questions, such as when they just wrote the writer a answer for everything that was asked, and the writer had the nerve to write underneath that 'google wouldn't elaborate'

personally, i could quite easily write just as good smear campaign on any body. Hmm such as how Paul's Milk knows how much milk i drink and therefore can personally identify my, which is not as far fetched as this reporter is getting at.

Overall, quite pathetic reporting and seems everyone else agrees and i severely hope that this writers credentials are being re-looked, as well with her/his job

Patriot.Aus ***

[e1462]

This is not poor journalism. Can you not see the privacy implications of every word you have ever searched using google being stored on their servers for an indefinite amount of time? not to mention that if you use gmail, the amount of personal information that could be obtained from that. The fact is that google has expanded and is doing everything. Aim is now available through gmail and the conversations are saved. It is impossible to leave your personal life or personal information out of your email and Instant messaging conversations. some of the information, such as medical information should not be accessible to anyone but yourself. But when the government wants some of this information, the legal route is just too much red tape for them. They will go (and have gone) to these services that collect way too much information about a person such as google, yahoo, etc. luckily, so far google has fought this but as we all know, everyone has a price, and the value of this information is growing steadily as more people put their information out there on google and as google continues to build more buildings to house the ridiculous amount of data it is storing. How long before google offers Mark zuckerberg an offer that he can't refuse? I don't have anything against google, but this is going in the direction of 1984. (not that it hasn't already happened with our government, it is just the fact that google is so brazen about this as if its ok)

[e1462]

This is not poor journalism. Can you not see the privacy implications of every word you have ever searched using google being stored on their servers for an indefinite amount of time? not to mention that if you use gmail, the amount of personal information that could be obtained from that. The fact is that google has expanded and is doing everything. Aim is now available through gmail and the conversations are saved. It is impossible to leave your personal life or personal information out of your email and Instant messaging conversations. some of the information, such as medical information should not be accessible to anyone but yourself. But when the government wants some of this information, the legal route is just too much red tape for them. They will go (and have gone) to these services that collect way too much information about a person such as google, yahoo, etc. luckily, so far google has fought this but as we all know, everyone has a price, and the value of this information is growing steadily as more people put their information out there on google and as google continues to build more buildings to house the ridiculous amount of data it is storing. How long before google offers Mark zuckerberg an offer that he can't refuse? I don't have anything against google, but this is going in the direction of 1984. (not that it hasn't already happened with our government, it is just the fact that google is so brazen about this as if its ok)

[Broward Horne]

Is Google Evil?

See the meme graph results.

http://www.realmeme.com/Main/savinggoogle/index.jsp

interesting

People hate google when its founders get thin-skinned, grossly rich, etc., but the googlies restore their "cool" with products like Gmail. The googlies need to ration themselves to a limited number of uncool activities (like getting richer) and continue launching cool product extensions. And restoring diplomatic relations with C-net with a fulsome apology for being thin-skinned would be a really cool thing to do.

[richards1052]

Eric Schmidt has might thin skin

I just don't get Google's churlish response to this article. It's a perfectly & responsible article. All the information about Schmidt was publicly available using his own company's technology. These people really have to get a life. It's not like the reporter went dumpster diving or dredged up former lovers or wives who wanted to tell all about him.

If Schmidt wants to be as prickly and thin-skinned as Bill Gates, then he'll have to pay the price in earning the public's disdain for his arrogance.

[mbaprof]

Google's Response is Absurd

The report only used fairly innocuous information, she could have revealed much more personal information such as whom the Schmidt's dined with at the White House or what night Bill Cinton was at their house or to be serious, much more revealing information on his family which could possibly compromise their safety. If Eric really cares so passionately about this , Google should allow web sites to "opt out" of Google to protect the privacy of the people who may be on their sites.

[outtanames999]

Ahh, but probing for personal factoids via Google is exactly like dumpster diving - daring and delicious (uh, no not de.licio.us). And the way Google massively and indiscriminately collects odds and ends could well be likened to a data or content garbage dump. In the future, we will mine our garbage dumps for recyclable materials the same way we mine Google for recyclable data.

[russkeller]

If there's nothing wrong with it he would have provided solid answers. Since those are not available he resorts to banning Cnet from Google press conferences. Nice.... I feel so much more confident in the cloud. The direction this is going is like a bad scifi movie.

[Madeleine Laury]

Eric Schmidt

It was suprising that, inorder to prove what an effective information company Google was- that you felt the need to actually publish the personal information on an individual (like the rest of us care). We would have believed your word for it had you just blanked out Eric Schmidt's wife's name, etc., and boasted that you had that information via Googling Schmidt.

It comes off as being paparazzi tabloid.

Madeleine

PS- The fact that Google can withhold information and did not do so on its own CEO, well......

Anti-google garbish news...

This is real garbish news... It's not realistic, it's real anti-google fanatism!

For instance, there are lots of tools like google desktop, that provide the ability to find content in documents, emails, etc... This story is trying to "say" to the readers that google save your private information, and that's not true...

This jornalist should apologize for the implicity evil side use of google that he sugest the google tools are about...

For instance, you can use biotech to destroy and biotech to cure, you can use lots of things to good and to evil... nuclear power can be used for good and for evil... but this jornalist only wrote with his evil fanatic anti-google mind!

You should be ashamed... get apologize!

Joao Oliveira

Um, it's anti-google, but true

I mean. Have you ever run a server? I have. Everything you do on a website is saved into a server log unless the server administrator states otherwise. I'm sure this isn't the case with google, given their popularity, people likely attempt to hack them regularly. Don't go around saying what google doesn't do with their servers when you don't know how server administration works.

does anyone think anymore?

Ok, the article, as I understand it, was concerned that google was maybe missing the mark with privacy concerns. So, in response, google has limited the publication of private information by not talking to cnet. so, hasn't google just done something to address privacy concerns? you don't need to worry about all that sensitive data bein exposed on cnet for a while...

On another note, however, cnet made a big fuss about all google's caches and databanks, but found all their info from private web sites as far as I can tell; not by digging through google's trash.

So, in summary, while google's response may seem over the top, in a way it is a very logical response. Also, although the reporter no doubt meant well, I think that she may have been trying to dig up resentment for search companies a little too much.

Better explained by Isaac Asimov

Isaac wrote that there would be a device that could show you the past. People didn't just use it to see 1775, they used it to see 10 minutes ago, two days ago, last week, last month, anywhere anyone.
Privace became history, life became a fish bowl.

Thanks Google!

Google may try to protect privacy

But will they succeed? Google has this info, and they can do as they please with it. Most likely, they'll with hold it to address said privacy concerns. What's to say an untrustworthy employee at google won't do something unauthorized with the data though? What's to say a hacker won't break into the info and steal it? Lastly, what's to say that law enforcement officers use the powers of the DMCA, the Patriot Act, or some other equally controvertial law to get this information? Google itself may address privacy concerns strongly. It's individuals that merit worrying about.

thats not true

most of the 'personal information' that u see in google is collected from public sources. IF u r that important then the information is accurate...most of the time the information is not accurate

Try this for a strategy

Instead of all complaining about all the information Google, and News.com, for that matter collect. Remember ONE inportant fact. Information is ONLY useful if it is ACCURATE.

Unless it is vital to do otherwise e.g. when applying for a loan, there is is the simple effective strategy that knocks them ALL flat.
Enter totally bum and spurious information whenever possible.

I maybe the CEO of an avionics Company to one Company, a Brain Surgeon to another. I may live in the USA, the UK or Europe or Iraq, depending upon how I feel.

Why do I do this? Simple - they have NO RIGHT to require you to answer their personal and totally irrelevant questions - look at the ones required to join this outfit as an example. Were they necessary? Of course not they are just being nosey and hope that this information will assist them in some way or another mostly for THEIR benefit NOT yours. And yes a lot of this private information does leek out, and I suspect much is sold under the counter as well. Information equates to MONEY.

So play them at their own game whenever possible and finally give them a Yahoo or HotMail typed email address. Thats normally pretty useless to them as well.

Regards

Cheyanne Bodie or is it Fred Flintstone or Cliff Richard? It's my memory playing tricks again - now where are those tablets the doctor gave me?

[outtanames999]

One hardly knows where to begin. Of course you can use INACCURATE information. It quite useful to spread lies and distortions. Here's some inaccurate information about August: his name is really April. See what I mean?

google adsense/adwords

The article didn't mention the most freaky part of google. With the google adsense program, they can track down every click on the internet. Coupling this information with the complete google database and they know with websites you visit. Even when you don't use any google product at all.

When a webmaster places the 'google ads' on his website, he gives google the permission to collect any kind of information about himself and the visitors of his website. The code they have to put on their website contains a key to session tracking, cookie placement, site statistics, etc. Enough to track everybody on the internet!

It isn't just technical possible, i think they abuse it already. Just read the terms of use from the google adsense program:
"Google may retain and use, subject to the terms of the Google Privacy Policy (located at http://www.google.com/privacy.html, or such other URL as Google may provide from time to time), all information You provide, including but not limited to Site demographics and contact and billing information. You agree that Google may transfer and disclose to third parties personally identifiable information about You for the purpose of approving and enabling Your participation in the Program, including to third parties that reside in jurisdictions with less restrictive data laws than Your own. Google may also provide information in response to valid legal process, such as subpoenas, search warrants and court orders, or to establish or exercise its legal rights or defend against legal claims. Google disclaims all responsibility, and will not be liable to You, however, for any disclosure of that information by any such third party. Google may share non-personally-identifiable information about You, including Site URLs, Site-specific statistics and similar information collected by Google, with advertisers, business partners, sponsors, and other third parties. In addition, You grant Google the right to access, index and cache the Site(s), or any portion thereof, including by automated means including Web spiders or crawlers."

[tstolber]

Adsense Paranoia

I understand why many people would not want their click paths tracked as it can be considered as an invasion of pricacy. I just don't feel that Google will mis use its data. Google AdWords and the subsequent AdSense program is one of their biggest revenue machines and is pretty much the reason Google makes money. The share holders know this and thats what drives the company now. They wouldn't want the apple cart disturbed! For more info on Google Adsense visit www.TheAdSenseFiles.co.uk

Living in an increasingly paranoid world.

In case you don't want to be tracked by a search engine, just don't use them! I personally trust google, and don't mind the data they collect. Anyone who is more suspicious, however, always has the option of not using any of the search engines or alike.

I didn't like the author's tone in the article. Publicly available data and publicizing data are two completely different things. I wish he had been more careful.

I think the issues raised by the article are gaining more attention that they should have been. The last two hours I spent on the issue was a waste of time.

[feedbackuser5]

Two hours

What eles did you do other than read the article and wright a responce that took you two hours?

It's all public information

Thins information could be found in almost an other search engine,
what is the fuss all about?

[www.ConstantClick.com]

Jean-Pierre Khoueiri of ConstantClick.com speaks on Google

If the information Google collects is in any way used in an unethical manner, the first complaint will cause a media storm that will likely force the comapny to react to citizens concerns. The only thing Googlers can do is wait and hope Google sticks to it's credo: "Do no evil"!

[jpally]

Google vs. ISP

A similar situation occurs at the ISP level itself.

[kael10]

Mr. Schmidt owes his success largely to a global network of mobster fiends is what I hear from rival mafia. They say it was him that was directly responsible for the colosal profits made from promoting child pornography with the Google search engine.
http://endmafia.com
http://cid-21ccdb1c1e0c985a.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!21CCDB1C1E0C985A!130.entry

[kael10]

Mr. Schmidt owes his success largely to a global network of mobster fiends is what I hear from rival mafia. They say it was him that was directly responsible for the colosal profits made from promoting child pornography with the Google search engine.
http://endmafia.com
http://cid-21ccdb1c1e0c985a.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!21CCDB1C1E0C985A!130.entry

[kael10]

I hear from rival Mafia that Eric Schmidt owes his success largely to a global network of mobster friends, and that he was directly responsible for the 'obscene amounts of money' made from deliberatly promoting child pornography produced by his cronies.
http://endmafia.com
http://cid-21ccdb1c1e0c985a.spaces.live.com/

[kael10]

I hear from rival Mafia that Eric Schmidt owes his success largely to a global network of mobster friends, and that he was directly responsible for the 'obscene amounts of money' made from deliberatly promoting child pornography produced by his cronies.
http://endmafia.com
http://cid-21ccdb1c1e0c985a.spaces.live.com/