I'll have more to say on this later in the week, but the Privacy International ratings of companies and their privacy policy is very interesting reading–particularly the part about Google being hostile to privacy.
I downloaded code checked into Google today, have received emails from people using Google, checked if my web settings are correct with Google's WebMaster tools (which ended up changing my username to the GMail account when I signed up for one in order to look at Google's use of Ajax), which then tracks me, as I surf about if I don't remember to log out.
People use the tools for office work, for mapping, for reading feeds, subscribing to feeds, to cover their every movement–even who they're subscribed to, and who they read.
What's particularly scary, and I think the report mentions this, is that Google can't understand why we're concerned. After all, this information will enable them to 'customize' our experiences. And, as comments have mentioned: Google gives us all this for free.
Custom search results (filtering), custom recommendations (lack of diversity), even custom ads — all the better to cleverly trigger our impulse buying. These are not the equivalent of a government's demands for this information, but neither are they a 'good' thing.
Generally, the folks in Duncan Riley's post see no harm, and in fact, they love it when Google 'personalizes' everything. But what cost personalization? At what point can we no longer trust what we'll be receiving on the internet? At what point, will the discordant voices be screened?
That's the original purpose of the internet, wasn't it? To provide a place for us to find new information and different views? New sources? New ways of looking at things?
The wonder of serendipity?
One thing I disagree with on the report: I don't see Google as 'hostile' to privacy. I think the company just doesn't understand it, or why any of us would be concerned about it. I think this overall puzzlement reflects the company's inward view, and lack of diversity on the staff–and by diversity, in this instance, I don't mean race or sex. I mean the company lacks the ability to see outside of its own algorithms.
It is this 'corporate confusion' over privacy and our concerns that's actually more intimidating than if the company was willfully deceptive.
update
Danny Sullivan has the most detailed look and pushback against the report at this time. I think he's missing a major aspect of the report: it's from our viewpoint, based on what we can see. Now what an insider knows. Not what a search engine expert understands.
Continued here
