Google Secret Privacy Document Leaked

siliconbits writes "A confidential, seven-page Google Inc. 'vision statement' shows the information-age giant in a deep round of soul-searching over a basic question: How far should it go in profiting from its crown jewels—the vast trove of data it possesses about people's activities? Should it tap more of what it knows about Gmail users? Should it build a vast 'trading platform' for buying and selling Web data? Should it let people pay to not see any ads at all?"

I don't see any ads at all...

[dollarwizard]

...thanks to Adblock [mozilla.org]

Re:how much would you pay?

[delinear]

how much would you pay a month to see no ads on any website?

Nothing? [adblockplus.org]

Sucky part about being a public company

[AnonymousClown]

I ran over and glanced at the holding of GOOG [yahoo.com] to see if the insiders have much control. As far as stock ownership is concerned, management doesn't have that much direct voting power.

The key questions are:

1. Will some of the big holders get bitchy and want Google to start whoring they're data.
2. Does the management have enough backing votes to block other big shareholders from forcing the whoring.

When some of the shareholders get wind that Google is holding back to be "good", you can bet you asses that there's going to be some fighting and these are the times when founders and their values get thrown out the window.

What could save them is that most of the shareholders are mutual funds. Those guys are usually passive and are just along for the ride.

Re:Sucky part about being a public company

[AnonymousClown]

The link I posted shows Mutual funds holding 81% (more than enough to do anything they please) , Brin has only 79,000 shares and I don't even see Page on the list. In other words, if came down to a vote of share, the founders have no voting power.

Re:I understand...

[VJ42]

Then it might be possible for the people at Adblock to give a settings selection like no-script does, to white-list specific advertisers who deliver you relevant and unobtrusive ads.

I know the current setting on Adblock allow for the disabling of certain filters, but it's not very user friendly.

You already can white list in Adblock. You just need to add "@@" (without the quotes) before the expression you want to stop it blocking - add it to your filter and you're done.

Re:Sucky part about being a public company

[Anonymous Coward]

Only some of the shares are "voting" shares. Brin, Page, and Schmitt together own the majority of those.

Re:Where is de-Google?

[StripedCow]

It can be applied easily. Just make some script that posts random stuff with your name in it to thousands of forums. Then, when people search for your name, there will be so much noise that the results are useless. Noise is google's enemy.

Problem...

[mrops]

In traditional sense, shares of a company XYZ were meant to buy you, well exactly, "shares" of the company. Company made X amount of dollars, you got to share profits in accordance with what you own in that company. Company grew, the shares were worth more, however the idea was you got to share the profit. Sure you could sell your shares, however the concept got turned head over heals when shares themselves became trading commodities, so unless prices of shares rise, they are not valued, it does not matter if company is making a fixed X amount of profit year over year.

3 cheers for greed!

DoubleClick?

[stanlyb]

It is funny that an article explaining the evil nature of DoubleClick and Microsoft, is actually using DoubleClick and MSN trackers, funny, ain't?

Re:I understand...

[Zerth]

That is one useful thing about this article. I was unaware that Google would actually show you what information you had in their cookie.

Not only that, they even let you edit it. Mine had some garden stuff in it that I deleted, then I added in some more categories I'd actually be interested in. I wish somebody had done that before.

Re:and...

[icebraining]

Google has two classes of shares: A and B.
A are only worth 1 vote, B are worth 10.
A are all publicly traded, B are all hold by founders, directors and executives.
At least in 2007, 67% of the votes were owned by Eric Schmidt, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

So being publicly available does not mean they don't control the company anymore.

Re:Sucky part about being a public company

[m.ducharme]

As mentioned above, the class B shares Brin and Page and the other founders and execs hold are worth 10 votes each. I personally can't vouch for the truth of that, but if true it would explain how they can control with such a small proportion of shares.

Excerpts

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't seem to have actually posted the document, only excerpts. And to be extra annoying, they embedded them in some stupid flash interface. Here they are:

Vision Statement: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text1.png [wsj.com]

Interest Targeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text2.png [wsj.com]
This section pertains to Google's plans to sell ads targeted to users' interests across the Google Content Network (GCN) -- the more than one million websites on which it sells display ads. It argues that Google can better identify users' likely interests than competitors through sophisticated analysis and richer data.

Retargeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-retarg.png [wsj.com]
Document discusses targeting ads at users who have already visited a particular website, known as retargeting. It notes that smaller ad companies have referred to such technologies as the "holy grail" of behavioral targeting, known here as "BT," but have struggled because they don't see users across enough sites. Google has since launched the feature across its display ad network.

Search: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text5.png [wsj.com]
This section discusses how Google could begin to use its knowledge about what individuals have searched for to determine what graphical ads to show the person as they browse around the web.

Google Services: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text6.png [wsj.com]
The excerpt identifies how Google could use data from services it owns to target ads across the web. Of those listed, YouTube is the only site where Google uses some data about what pages users visit to target ads on its display ad network.

"Wacky" Ideas: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text8.png [wsj.com]
Once Google had the technology to be able to target ads to individual web browsers, it contemplated a range of ideas, including letting individuals pay not to see ads, block individual advertisers or share data about themselves in exchange for a discount on their Internet service bill. At least one idea, the Larry Page ad, was never pursued.

Advertising Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text9.png [wsj.com]
Google planned to limit use such data about what websites people visited for targeting on sites where it sold ads, known as the Google Content Network, or GCN. Over time, allowing other ad buyers and sellers to use its data to identify people to target could boost business.

Data Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text10.png [wsj.com]
The document contemplates how Google could build a new data marketplace, where companies could trade lists of web users they wanted to target with ads.

Unlinked Excerpts:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text3.png [wsj.com]
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text4.png [wsj.com]
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLE [wsj.com]

Re:I understand...

[bluefoxlucid]

Now I'm not a big fan of ads myself, but I do wonder sometimes what would happen if google did actually deliver content relevant ads to the web pages I regularly visit, or based off interests I had in my facebook/google buzz or similar online profile.

My facebook is full of college girls, and Facebook for like 2 months constantly delivered every other ad as "DATE A COUGAR!" I'm also single (I have NEVER had a girlfriend, EVER) and disinterested in relationships entirely; Facebook loves to show me expensive, multiple-diamond-encrusted engagement rings. Now seriously, I'm not LOOKING for the perfect girl, I'm AVOIDING it; if I met a girl I wanted to marry, she'd be something so special I'd get her a white gold engagement ring with a single beautifully set diamond, and some simple but beautifully carved wedding bands in white gold. Who buys a girl an ugly, gaudy, heart-shaped ring with 47 diamonds just crammed in there in the ugliest manner possible?!

Re:and...

[Elektroschock]

3 Aug 2010 - P-6552/2010
Question for written answer to the Council under Rule 117
MEP Stavros Lambrinidis (S&D)

Council recommendations for combating ‘radicalisation’ in the EU

The conclusions adopted at the Council meeting of 26 April recommend, as
a means of combating ‘radicalisation’ within the EU, a mechanism for the
collection of personal data for the purposes of political, religious and
psychological profiling in order to assess the likelihood of recruitment
by terrorist organisations of those concerned. An addendum dated 30
March 2010 contains a joint questionnaire for the authorities seeking to
investigate, for example, ideologies directly advocating violence, more
specifically ‘extreme right/left, Islamist, nationalist,
anti-globalisation etc.’ movements, while a further question seeks to
obtain data concerning the ‘friends, family’ etc. of individuals under
investigation. In view of this:
1. What precisely is the Council's legal interpretation of the term
‘ideology’ with a view to monitoring the practices followed by the
prosecution services regarding compliance with the rule of law? Who will
be responsible for deciding which individuals subscribe to the
‘ideologies’ under investigation and accordingly which of them are to be
subject to scrutiny? What criteria will be applied in this respect?
2. What is understood as being encompassed by ‘anti-globalisation
ideology’ and how will the Council ensure that the extremely general
nature of this concept does not mean that all those who hold political
views diverging from the relevant ‘mainstream ideology’ regarding
international developments are not from the outset treated as
‘potentially violent suspects’ and kept under surveillance accordingly?
Similarly, the term ‘Islamic ideology’ obviously encompasses thousands
of individuals who have no intention of committing acts of violence or
inciting others to do so (offences in any case already covered by
criminal law within the Member States and hence not necessitating any
new data collection ‘mechanism’). How does the proposed mechanism avoid
the danger of the national authorities collecting data on all ‘Islamic’
(or other) ‘ideologists’, without exception, in order to investigate
which of them are likely to engage in ‘violent radicalisation’ and which
are not?
3. Why does the Council recommendation ignore the close link between
certain forms of terrorism and organised crime, which obviously has very
little to do with established ‘ideologies’?
4. How does the Council respond to the accusation that its
recommendation is couched in such general terms that it is effectively
encouraging Member States to keep both law- abiding citizens and
wrongdoers under systematic surveillance?

Re:and...

[metrometro]

> being publicly available does not mean they don't control the company anymore.

Minority shareholder lawsuit. Google it.

Re:and...

[Monchanger]

Sigh... Yes yes, bottom line is everything... Nothing else matters...

"Most valuable brand" is about what people will pay...

That "people" == customers. So you've said it yourself- it's about customers. Regardless of motivation, regardless of consequences.

The site you quoted is stupid, confusing "brand" [brandirectory.com] with "brand value" [brandchannel.com]. Brand, as in "brand loyalty", is about customers tending to purchase specific products or from specific companies, and has absolutely nothing to do with that company's bottom line. What that brand is worth, while the impetus for improving it, is but a derivative aspect.