Slashdot Log In
Outcry Over Google's Purchase of Doubleclick
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Apr 23, 2007 05:08 PM
from the fear-of-change dept.
from the fear-of-change dept.
TheCybernator writes to mention that several activist groups have cried out in protest of the Google buyout of Doubleclick reported in recent news. "'Google's proposed acquisition of DoubleClick will give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world,' said the complaint lodged with the Federal Trade Commission. 'Moreover, Google will operate with virtually no legal obligation to ensure the privacy, security, and accuracy of the personal data that it collects.' The complaint was filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center along with the Center for Digital Democracy and the US Public Interest Research Group, all of which are involved in online privacy issues."
Related Stories
[+]
Google buys DoubleClick for $3.1 Billion 351 comments
marvinalone writes "The New York Times reports that Google has purchased DoubleClick. That seems to be the conclusion to the speculation we've talked about earlier. From the article: 'Google reached an agreement today to acquire DoubleClick, the online advertising company, from two private equity firms for $3.1 billion in cash, the companies announced, an amount that was almost double the $1.65 billion in stock that Google paid for YouTube late last year.'"
[+]
Politics: FTC Investigating Google-DoubleClick Deal 81 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is covering FTC interest in Google's purchase of the DoubleClick service. The investigation is in response to privacy group concerns over the amount of information Google will have available to it via its ad service and DoubleClick. Between a few days and a week from now the FTC should either declare the all clear, or elevate the process to a 'second request' stage. That would indicate more serious issues the federal body has an interest in. Google stated it was confident the purchase would hold up under scrutiny. 'In the complaint, the groups noted that Google collects the search histories of its users, while DoubleClick tracks what Web sites people visit. The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
I realize some of you are pretty young around here, but there was a time when PC's were new. Everyone wanted one because they unhooked you from CENTRALIZED COMPUTING. Now everyone thinks CENTRALIZED COMPUTING is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Guess what, nothing has changed. The corporations want you to buy into centralized computing because it gives them control over your information and computation.
Looks like history will reinvent itself with everyone wanting to unhook themselves once more. Well, if they are smart.
Parent
motto (Score:5, Funny)
Google - Don o' evil
Parent
Re:motto (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not a full on paranoid (can't stand using Tor most of the time for example) but it doesn't mean I have to give my information away just because someone went to the effort of trying to retrieve it. Bad enough they have my email and I log in automatically to that...
And is Google becoming the new Microsoft? Large enough market share to be scary, but still with enough competition that America can't really interject with the justice system?
Parent
TrackMeNot (Score:5, Interesting)
"exclusive fire roasting process"
"business relations win"
"crazy meds explains"
"moat encourages young" -- what ?
and so on. It is pretty fun just to watch what it will come up with. I send about 1 per 2 seconds, and then perhaps a 'real' query once per hour. Let Google try to figure out which is which, they are pretty smart so I'll leave it up to them as an exercise...
Parent
Does trackmenot follow search results? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems pretty ridiculous to me. If it was worth the effort you could probably be tracked and what you are doing is only 'effective' to the degree that Google doesn't care.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:motto (Score:5, Insightful)
But, I guess it comes down to - for most sites anyway - I wouldn't bother going to them at all if I had to view their ads. So, if they can get some people to view the ads and that keeps them in business great. But I'll be damned if I will use the site if it has many on it. Some of these 10 ads and a paragraph of actual text, then click next for 10 more ads and a paragraph sites I have already stopped going to even WITH adblock plus. It just isn't worth it. Same thing with TV. If I can't TiVo it - forget it. It's my time and I get to decide what I watch with it (and guess what - ads aren't what I picked!).
If that forces some sites I like to go subscription - that would probably be fine with me. I imagine there would be a lot less flames and more reasonable discussion here on good old slashdot if it had to go subscription. Trolls probably don't want to pay, and I'd be willing to bet the crazy "mac switcher" guy with his maximize window crap and the GNAA guy wouldn't want to pay either.
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
When they installed WGN onto your computer and they then started reporting back to their website about your legitimacy they were spying on you. It is akin to having Walmart employees come into your home and search it to determine if those things you have in your home are paid for given the fact that you visit their stores as a customer. This is essentially what Microsoft is doing and they are doing it repeatedly, on a regular basis. Microsoft should get away from it because they installed the equivalent of a hidden camera on your computer? You wouldn't let the government invade your home and you certainly wouldn't allow Walmart to enter it, and you damn certainly should not be allowing Microsoft to do what they are with their WGN program or any other.
This complaint is utter nonsense and loonacy at best. There are greater issues out there for these agencies to complain about. Let's get them complaining to the FTC about Microsoft's WGN utility and the various other things Microsoft is and will do to invade your privacy.
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
What this article so nobly doesn't mention is that it's Microsoft who's stirring up all of these lobbyist groups. Snatching a link off of Google (ahem), we find:
DoubleClick: Microsoft Loses, Then Whines - http://www.247wallst.com/2007/04/doubleclick_mic.h tml [247wallst.com]
Google buys DoubleClick, Microsoft protests - http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/12270 [techreport.com]
Google rivals urge scrutiny of DoubleClick deal - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18132983/ [msn.com]
So, um, don't panic. The community hasn't decided Google is the antichrist; this is all astroturfing, and Yahoo and Microsoft were trying to buy DoubleClick too. ;)
Parent
I haven't been around in a while (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I haven't been around in a while (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I haven't been around in a while (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I'm going to start tagging stories with "googleisgood" or "googleisevil" depending on how I think it reflects on the company. If that catches on, we should be able to gather up-to-the-minute data on whether Google is good or evil.
God bless Web 2.0.
Parent
Re:I haven't been around in a while (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I haven't been around in a while (Score:5, Insightful)
Google already holds a good deal of private information about me. And their privacy policies are readily available and clearly outlined.
http://www.google.com/privacy.html [google.com]
What does this purchase change other than a new source of information? They do targeted advertising. Google's income relies on giving away free services in exchange for you giving information to Google. I believe their ads while targeted, often come across as less intrusive and less annoying than anyone else's.
Given their competitors, I think Google is the least evil kid on the block.
While guys like AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo were volunteering private information to China in a massive witch-hunt, Google was the only one that even tried to fight for your right to privacy.
Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo have all in the past put out software that doesn't fully disclose how it spies on you.
Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo have all fought against open standards, open communication and open source software. Google embraces and supports all of these things.
When someone has evidence to demonstrate that Google is in fact evil, and specifically worse than their competitors, I'll be concerned. Everything until then is alarmist propaganda.
Parent
Re:I haven't been around in a while (Score:5, Insightful)
You assume the only reason they would do anything "good" is for marketing purposes to make the company look better. Do you know that when I bring up things like Google's Summer of Code program to the non-slashdot crowd, not a soul has heard about it?
They don't sit around tooting their own horn.
Has it ever occurred to you that they are a very wealthy company that has the ability to do good things with their wealth and position, and opts to do so based on principle rather than their image?
Why is it impossible to believe that they would support something financially simply because they support the ideal?
You then follow with another absolute statement that advertising companies are all evil. Again, blanket statements aren't helping your cause.
You also have suggested that Google does from time to time violate your privacy. In what way? Do you have details or examples?
They paved the way for giving away tons of free products and services. They've paved the way for respecting privacy and establishing trust with their user base. They've paved the way to catering the geek crowd, and attempting to offer the best services as opposed to the most mass-marketed services.
Most of the anti-Google talk lacks substance and if I had to guess, stems from the hatred of large corporations in general, as opposed to anything that Google has done specifically to deserve it.
Feel free to try again.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're assuming that the Summer of Code isn't tightly focused marketing to the 'slashdot' crowd. I'm not sure how much it would actually mean to most non-tech people, but it is obviously a big win in the tech/OSS crowd.
Re:I haven't been around in a while (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you understand how your attempt at logic contradicts itself?
Humans control corporations, and certainly some are better or worse than others.
The world does not operate in simplistic and absolute black and white as you paint it.
I'm also not interested in the opinion of one who was personally apparently crossed by a corporation, and somehow in your mind that completely defines them. It shows you have a lack of perspective and objectivity.
I gave you the opportunity to offer up facts, and you provided none.
Really, I'm done here.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
I brought facts.
They don't go out of their way to advertise their contributions to open source software or hardware. They don't go about putting press releases into newspapers or magazines tooting their own horn.
I pointed you directly to their privacy policies.
They are the only major player in the market not to release software that "phones home" without telling you.
They are the only major player in the market to fight China on their censorship policies while everyone else willingl
if you're so worried about privacy (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox has a setting that will clear all settings every time it's closed. Works like a champ. Of course, this won't clear any IP logs on Google's (or whoever's) site, but it's a start. I guess you can force your ISP to keep assigning a new IP to you, but that may be more of a hassle than it's worth. My tin-foil hat doesn't fit that tight.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One company with the most! (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean one company will have more information than any other company? Unthinkable!
That has nothing to do with competition (Score:2)
If you want to make an argument as to why Google shouldn't be able to aquire Double Click, you have to talk about prices.. you'll just be ignored otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
China probably makes nuclear weapons a lot more cheaply than the United States, but you aren't purchasing them there.
When it comes to a single conglomerate controlling vast amounts
Uhh, duh?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, and all this time I thought that they already had.
Moreover, Google will operate with virtually no legal obligation to ensure the privacy, security, and accuracy of the personal data that it collects.
How is this different than before just by acquiring Doubleclick? (Hint: It's not.)
Yeah, acquiring Doubleclick was fucking lame and I think it was an expensive gamble but that doesn't make them any more or less likely to horde our private data.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All of these complaints are stupid anyway because none of them have the public's interest in mind. Do you really think Microsoft feels the purchase will be agai
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
or something along those lines anyway
I for one... A call to the Google Co. (Score:5, Interesting)
So what? (Score:2)
127.0.0.1 anything.doubleclick.net
Big Google is BAD (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the status quo. Google may be that company, they may not be. But there must be one company which knows more than any other at this moment.
That, too, is status quo. Again, nothing is different.
I realize that big companies are evil, mergers are evil, and having all that data in one company's hands might make it more likely to be abused than in the hands of two competitors... but this seems like hand-wringing over nothing. Google just placed themselves in a position to used as a bad guy in this fight. Of course, if companies can get your data wrong and not be liable, wouldn't you rather have 5 companies have it wrong than 6?
Poor Google made themselves a target in an old fight, but I don't really see this as all that bad. This just seems overblown to me.
Not yet worried (Score:2)
No limits, really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't they have to abide by existing privacy laws? If so, then the real problem is: existing privacy laws are inadequate.
It shouldn't matter what company it is.
More access than any other company? (Score:2)
Always shoot the guy in front (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Because the more consolidated the resources are, the easier they are to monitor, and the more careful they have to be because they are a larger target if they do violate our rights, or simply piss off the internet community.
I don't like double click any more than anyone else. Mostly because they are very stealthy (well kinda), compared to Google. I know that Google pays attention to what I search for, I can tell by the ads they provide... it's in my face and I trust them (more or less) because they have lots to lose if they start abusing their users.
I really start to freak out when I visit a not-so-reputable site and get adds for "So-and-so lives in mycity,state about 2 miles away and is looking for a good time..." where did they get my address? I wouldn't put is past doubleclick or any of the smaller tracking systems, but Google would be blasted in the media if they were selling our personal info to Porn/Adult 'dating' sites.
I could be completely wrong... maybe no one cares enough to complain and Google is selling us all up the river... but I doubt it.
I do have to admit though, it's kinda scary knowing that anyone has that kind of power to know so much about a person. Kinda like when I reviewed my FBI security clearance paperwork... it's amazing what they can dig up!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Historically, Google has been pretty good about privacy issues, despite the NUMEROUS areas of concern like:
- Scanning everyone's gmail
- Google Desktop's indexing of everyone's machine content
- Keeping search data indefinitely
- etc, etc.
Somehow, DOUBLECLICK is the biggest concern? Not a chance. This is media hype perpetuated by the competition crying foul. I really wish people would concern themselves with actual privacy issues. It's just advertising data, people. Fear the Google Desktop, not tracking cookies.
It's all relative... I guess (Score:5, Funny)
Google in 2007: "Really now, what is evil? Who are we to say what evil is....?"
3 letters (Score:3, Funny)
It's well known the CIA is woven deep into Google, and frankly if they weren't we'd have to fire the whole CIA for incompetence.
Re:They're legally mandated to make $ top priority (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:They're legally mandated to make $ top priority (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I'm not so worried about Google's intentions... (Score:4, Interesting)
With Microsoft, a lot of what they do stinks of control and monopoly-based thinking. Claiming to support browser standards, but breaking them such that it's more work for web-based businesses to support browsers other than the most dominant one, creating their own "PlaysForSure" music DRM standard and then breaking it for their banner music player which is supposed to supplant the iPod, donating huge amounts of money to schools in the form of certificates for Windows-only software. It's a very different culture.
Plus, if I really want to, I can block cookies, I can avoid sites with advertisements, I can not use the Google toolbar. They are not forcing me to give them my data. I don't use Google Checkout, for example. I don't like to have a blank check sitting on anyone's system. However, they've made it worthwhile for me (functionally) to use their toolbar, so I do. They've made it (financially) worthwhile for me to use their Adsense system, so I do. They've made it worthwhile (functionally) for me to use Gmail, so I do. It's easy, reliable and the price is right, and I can take my crap and go any time if I really wish to, so I use it.
The sheer fact that Google is one of the biggest companies doesn't make them the worst. A very small company can be very corrupt. Microsoft, to quote--or at least paraphrase Steve Jobs--may not be evil, but they have no class, and I choose to give them no more of my resources--informational, financial or otherwise--than I absolutely have to. But it's not because their the biggest; it's because they engage in predatory, anti-competitive behavior.
That being said, Google is a company made up of people. And people do bad things; people make mistakes. My initial point was that even if the intention isn't bad, bad things can happen. I'm not sure it's worth a lawsuit, but it is worth questioning--and was, even before the D-C purchase--whether Google is taking all necessary precautions to make sure that data is not being abused. For example, a client of mine recently emailed me his social security number. I didn't ask for it, and I didn't want it. And I deleted the message. However, it was on my Gmail account, and I'm sure they have a backup somewhere, and if some corrupt-but-efficient person were to gain unfettered access to email backups and do a search for patterns matching social security numbers, they could find them, and possibly use and sell them, and that would be a *bad* thing.
So in short, there's no love and devotion and justification going on, and Google is not yet Microsoft. G may be bigger, but M is definitely badder. Your wariness is probably founded; I just don't feel the same way... yet.
Your rhetorical suggestion about some other smaller company with a good idea is probably a good litmus test. If some little company comes along with a search algorithm that works 100 times better than Google's, and Google sues them into oblivion spuriously (i.e. without grounds, but knowing that the little guy doesn't have deep enough pockets), then I'd start to feel the same way about Google. Likewise, if they were to buy the company and bury the technology so that it never saw the light of day, I'd feel negative about Google. But so far, GOOG has been all about incorporating new ideas, using open standards, and supporting multiple platforms. So far, so good. If you want to know how I'll feel about them next week, ask me next week.
Parent