Outcry Over Google's Purchase of Doubleclick 242
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."
What? (Score:4, Interesting)
I for one... A call to the Google Co. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I haven't been around in a while (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Uhh, duh?! (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 against the public's interest? Fuck no. They are mad Google beat them to the punch and blocked them. Microsoft runs to mommy (the government) every time they feel they don't have an unfair advantage. The privacy groups don't like Google's data mining projects as a whole and want to stifle the company. Blocking this purchase would do just that. Like I said, all these are greedy personal interests and there's no one speaking up for the public interest right now, which may or may not be allowing this to go through. But we'll never know with all this FUD flying around.
Re:That has nothing to do with competition (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 of information about a large portion of the world's population, I think it is safe to say prices won't be a factor that will ameliorate concerns.
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?
Re:They're legally mandated to make $ top priority (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:motto (Score:2, Interesting)
This brings up an important question: At what point is ad blocking too much?
The reality of the internet is that most of it is commercial. Many of the best sites have to be this way because they require a full time staff, and who are we to deny them the right to make a living providing us with content to view? These sites really have only two options: ads or subscription. So, at what point does ad blocking become too much?
Personally, I do use Adblock but I don't go out of my way to block ads so I still get most of them. That's fine with me. It takes the edge off the really annoying ones. Of course you'll have to pry Flashblock out of my cold dead fingers. Damn flash ads.
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...
Re:Potential risk (Score:3, Interesting)
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.