EPIC Urges FTC To Investigate Google Services 111
snydeq writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a 15-page complaint asking the FTC to force Google to stop offering online services that collect data until the presence of adequate privacy safeguards is verified. The EPIC also wants Google to disclose all data loss or breach incidents, citing several incidents where data held by Google was at risk, the most recent of which occurred earlier this month with its Google Docs. The EPIC complaint [PDF] also listed other security flaws in Gmail and Google Desktop, a desktop indexing program, and urged Google to donate $5 million to a public fund that will support research into technologies such as encryption, data anonymization and mobile location privacy."
EPIC has raised privacy concerns about Google before, and about Windows XP as well.
Uh huh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just what we need, another busy-body self-proclaimed agency trying to control private industry. WTF do these guys come from?
The real reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
"It also would like the company to donate $5 million to a public fund that will support research into technologies such as encryption, data anonymization and mobile location privacy."
The real reason for the filing is hidden in the last paragraph.
EPIC fail, you mean (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I might have taken them a bit more seriously if the summary didn't end with and urged Google to donate $5 million to a public fund. So that's what it's about then -- money. Political statements that end in requests for donation do a good job of discrediting themselves simply because it's hard to believe that someone could be walking the high road of idealism while at the same time asking for a handout.
Re:EPIC fail, you mean (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, these days, even EPIC could use a little bit of a bailout. As an AIG employee, it seems like a perfectly reasonable request to me. We cannot allow privacy groups to fail.
EPIC's gross income for FY2007 was less than a million dollars, and they have about $2 million in assets. They've been steadily losing ground in the donations department. A $5 million "public fund" they could dive into would assure there continued existance (and $128k yearly salary for their president) for some time. I think the financial motivation here is quite clear. Their relevance, however, is not. The ACLU, by comparison, had $80 million in revenue in Q3/07 alone. The administrative overhead is also lower, and they claim to also be advocating privacy. Frankly, EPIC is a tiny finish in a big pond--they need to grab headlines to survive, and attacking Google seems carefully calculated to do just that. Google's "do no evil" slogan opens themselves up to groups like this who want a handout and can manipulate the press to get Google to sign over some of their $5.2 BILLION in revenue for FY2008, and $12.1 BILLION in assets.
So for Google to pay them some hush money wouldn't even earn a mention in their financial highlights, but for EPIC, it would be, well, epic for them to pull in $5 million.
Could always try NOT using those services (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, if you're not comfortable about Google (possibly) sharing your stuff, then DONT USE THEM.
Re:The real reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not hidden very well. Just where do you think that $5M would go?
EPIC sounds like a public research entity. Gee, I wonder if they would be asking the FTC to fine Google and give the money back to EPIC.
I try not to be skeptical all the time, but news like this consistently reinforces my view that freeloaders will always be out there trying to take what they can't earn from people who are more successful than they are.
Re:EPIC fail, you mean (Score:5, Insightful)
If people are concerned about their privacy and don't trust Google then they will avoid google products. Plain and simple.
If the government steps in and starts requiring companies to comply with various privacy regulations etc. it will only serve to discourage new entry into the industry, helping Google to secure a monopoly on online services. It would do the exact opposite of what privacy advocates want.
There are lots of alternatives out there if you don't want Google to have access to all of your e-mail and search history etc. If you don't care and Google satisfies you then it doesn't matter, use Google. If you are concerned then don't use Google. We don't need the government to help us make these decisions. We can think and choose for ourselves, and discussing these issues is the first step to informing people who don't know. Asking government to keep us safe helps to safe-guard public ignorance, since they know that Big Brother will always have their backs and thus there is no need to think, listen or do research for themselves. That spells a far worse privacy nightmare than the current situation.
Re:EPIC fail, you mean (Score:5, Insightful)
If people are concerned about their privacy and don't trust Google then they will avoid google products. Plain and simple.
Ah, not necessarily. You assume that people care more about privacy than accessibility and ease of use. This fails to account for people that may be concerned about their privacy, don't trust google, but use it anyway because their level of risk (loss of privacy) is less than the amount of benefit in continuing to use Google. I could argue that market forces allow Google more egregious violations of privacy than its smaller competitors; And further that this is okay because people are making a conscious decision to sacrifice their privacy to gain the "google advantage" (apologies for the market-speak). Please carefully note I am not supporting either position here, merely informing you that they exist.
If the government steps in and starts requiring companies to comply with various privacy regulations etc. it will only serve to discourage new entry into the industry, helping Google to secure a monopoly on online services. It would do the exact opposite of what privacy advocates want.
Your health care records are protected by federal privacy laws. There is no monopoly (there IS a large broken system, however) in that area. As well, California has passed numerous privacy laws that do not seem to encourage monopolistic behavior. As long as the burden of protecting privacy does not create a significant addition to the total cost of entry for a new competitor into the market in question, this principle should be broadly applicable to all industries (including search engine / service providers).
There are lots of alternatives out there if you don't want Google to have access to all of your e-mail and search history etc.
I would argue they all suck. Google at least makes that information readily accessible and usable to me. The alternatives still get all my e-mail and search history, but I don't get even a cuddle afterwords.
We don't need the government to help us make these decisions.
And what decisions should the government "help us" on, if not in the area of civil rights and liberties, of which the Supreme Court has recognized privacy as an inalienable human right (even though there is no language in the constitution providing for it -- under the assertion that rights not specifically delegated to the State are reserved by the People).
We can think and choose for ourselves, and discussing these issues is the first step to informing people who don't know.
I would argue some of us are merely rearranging our prejudices in what passes for thought. And nowhere is discussion more valuable or prevalent than on the legislator's floor, or in his/her office.
Asking government to keep us safe helps to safe-guard public ignorance, since they know that Big Brother will always have their backs and thus there is no need to think, listen or do research for themselves. That spells a far worse privacy nightmare than the current situation.
The government, at least in theory, is of, for, and by the people. I don't think corporations can say the same. For privacy to be effective, it has to be universal. Because otherwise the economic incentive to people who aren't playing the "privacy game" will remain and so no lasting industry alliance will ever form. The only way to assure privacy across the board is to legislate it.
Re:Could always try NOT using those services (Score:5, Insightful)
This will start to cut into Google's bottom line and they will get the message and alter their practices.
The problem isn't googles =practices-. The problem is googles -size-.
I really couldn't care less if a some reasonable percentage of sites I visit all get ads from the same provider using cookies.
I really couldn't care less if a webmail provider could potentially data mine my webmail to serve me ads on the webmail site.
I really couldn't care less if a bunch of sites i visit use the same analytics system.
It bothers me greatly however, that virtually all the sites I visit get ads from the same provider, that also is datamining webmail, and also has a huge piece of the analytics pie. Oh and they want my documents, maps, pictures of my house, and phone call logs too.
Individually each piece is relatively worthless. Its the difference between [seeing what someone at the mall is looking at], and [seeing what someone at the mall is looking at, seeing where they went next, seeing what kind of car they drive, seeing where they live, overhearing their conversations, seeing them at work...] In both cases you are just 'seeing' what people do in public, which isn't a privacy breach... but systematically following people around isn't merely 'seeing them in public'. Its stalking. Its surveillance.
The only regulation that needs to be applied is a sort of 'anti stalking' legislation. It won't affect small/new companies, because they aren't big enough to see enough to cross the stalking threshold.
Meanwhile a company like google would need to be careful, because they effectively are stalking people on the web. Often able to track virtually everything you do on the web.
Like I said, I don't care if google sees me out on the 'public web'. But I don't like being stalked by them everywhere I go.
Re:Talk about raining on someone's parade.... (Score:2, Insightful)