Google Secret Privacy Document Leaked 281
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?"
Re:how much would you pay? (Score:4, Insightful)
I gotta say... (Score:4, Insightful)
...while I abhor some of Google's actions in recent years, they are in a simultaneously fortunate and unfortunate position. They are fortunate in that they have gotten where they are based on their own merits, including their ability to navigate the market with ease and giving people what they want.
They are unfortunate in that they are such a huge business; while customer and user satisfaction is still at the top of their list, nothing will ever be a higher priority than profit (as it should be with a business). This causes them to get sloppy, though...
I'm glad to see they are having at least some form of internal dialogue about just how greedy they should actually be ("greed is good", after all). This indicates that they are at least aware of the recent downturn in the public's perception of them.
I understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and... (Score:5, Insightful)
What shall we use to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger roar?
Shall we set out across the sea of faces
In search of more and more applause?
Shall we buy a new guitar?
Shall we drive a more powerful car?
Shall we work straight through the night?
Shall we get into fights?
Leave the lights on?
Drop bombs?
Do tours of the east?
contract diseases?
Bury bones?
Break up homes?
Send flowers by phone?
Take to drink?
Go to shrinks?
Give up meat?
Rarely sleep?
Keep people as pets?
Train dogs?
Race rats?
Fill the attic with cash?
Bury treasure?
Store up leisure?
But never relax at all
With our backs to the wall.
---
Eh, Pink Floyd deserves the sacrifice of some karma points...
Re:I gotta say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes true. Profit should be the highest priority for business. Don't mistake profit for bad business practices...most companies would likely make even more money if they treated their customers right and listened to their concerns.
Again, you don't have to be an asshole to make good money...despite the common stigma.
Re:I gotta say... (Score:5, Insightful)
and no I'm not a Google fanboy
it will be hard to shut down (Score:5, Insightful)
the marketing assholes in the board room, but if google sticks by its loyalty to privacy, they will remain a respected and profitable company for a very long time
if however they break their commitments to privacy, they will, indeed, reap a flurry of greater profits. but at the cost of driving away customers. the problem in a business like google's is there is always another search website, and even if its not quite as fast or accurate as google, if it makes a loud point of pledging to not rape your privacy, then it will even beat google, eventually
before there was google, there was altavista. before facebook, myspace. the king of the web does not have to stay the king of the web, and it can be quite sudden and amazing at how sudden and fast that fall can be. google better remember this
Re:Time to split off the search arm? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yawn... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:ironic (Score:2, Insightful)
Does anybody else notice the irony here? Maybe this will give them an idea of how it feels to have your privacy invaded.
You're assuming the document wasn't deliberately "leaked". If I wanted to make it look like I took my users' concerns seriously I'd certainly make an effort to pull off a stunt like this.
Never in the history of American business (Score:5, Insightful)
Never in the history of American business has a company as large and powerful as Google NOT taken advantage of something this profitable and desired by those in control of the country.
I don't care what they say, or how many slogans they have that they sometimes follow and sometimes ignore - they're going to use this data. The only question is to wha extent - and given Eric Schmidt's recent statements on privacy and the future of the web (which were completely disgusting to me and likely to anyone else who values the internet as a place of freedom and growth), I expect that they will fully exploit all that they have.
I am not anti-Google, I love Google's products and I think their search engine is the best, and as far as large companies go they certainly aren't anywhere near the most evil - but the power and data they have, along with some of the places they've received funding from, combined with the attitude of their CEO is greatly concerning.
Re:I gotta say... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a sensible point hiding under the hyperbole about slavery though; sometimes a company can turn a better profit by doing something unethical, so commitment purely to the bottom line will fail to produce businesses that do good things.
Doing something unethical (of the type that your customers care about) then getting publicly busted for it... that's where ethical behaviour is a more attractive option for the profit-chaser. But too often companies are able to slide along despite unethical practice by being so big (and the bad stuff so remote) that people just buy from them out of habit, without giving a lot of thought to exactly what they might be supporting.
Re:and... (Score:2, Insightful)
Hit the nail right on it's head. Google is a company, which is owned by its shareholders who solely want profit. Google is currently the most valuable brand in the world. By engaging in activities like selling users information, brand value will decline and so will profits (long term). However, not selling the information (short term) will make shareholders angry.
The problem is that Google is a company, which is an anonymous entity in society solely created for the purpose of generating profit. If they change this, then they can be "not be evil" and then they won't have such dilemma's.
I don't see buying google employee's buying up stock untill they have 100%, to convert Google into a different form then being a company, though.
Re:how much would you pay? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a sucker's question. Cable TV is $100/month and you still see ads. There is no end to the greed.
Re:and... (Score:3, Insightful)
Or only Quasi-evil.
Evil-lite.
just a little evil?
don't gnaw on your kitty.
Re:I gotta say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yoiu are missing one thing from that.
Profit at the expense of quality. 99% of all corperations dont care about anything but next quarter. if I can piss off 30% of my customers but increase profits for next quarter then I am a freaking hero.
Re:Ads as social media? (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Google (if it chose to) could mine a lot more data than it does - e.g. contents of gmail, results of using Google DNS, etc
b) There are ways that Google could make a lot of money out of mining more data from the contents of their servers
c) There is a point where customers would get pissed off/could be illegal if they over stepped the mark
d) That it's entirely reasonable for Google to debate and investigate what further data mining they could do without Being Evil.
I presume the document in TFA is a debate over where they draw the line. I'm glad they're debating it. I'll let you know what I think of them when they've decided where that line is.
Re:it will be hard to shut down (Score:4, Insightful)
Just to be clear, Google's customers are the advertisers. We the users are their products.
But yes, if their products evaporate it will be a might challenge to sell anything to their customers and the nickle-and-dime folks at Google will feel that.
Re:and... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't see any ads at all... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ads as social media? (Score:3, Insightful)
Me too, if it meant that I would always be treated like a valuable paying customer when it comes to problems with privacy and usability.
And I'm not joking either. You often get what you pay for.
Re:I understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy whose girlfriend says "I want a gaudy, heart-shaped ring with 47 diamonds just crammed in there in the ugliest manner possible!"
Re:Problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
It got turned on its head because of taxes on dividends.
Re:Ads as social media? (Score:3, Insightful)
Free? You pay Facebook your privacy - that sounds expensive. Not as expensive as Google might be: you'd pay with your privacy plus money for the ads.
Re:and... (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't have to win to have power. To use a slashdot-grade analogy, holding a gun to your head will influence your behavior even if I never pull the trigger.
Google will lose money some day. And when it does, all kinds of Not Evil stuff will be under assault.
Re:how much would you pay? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with product placement; seeing Walt Kowalski drinking PBR and Heinekin instead of some made-up brand adds realism to the movie. But they didn't use to have commercials in the theater. They would have trailers for upcoming shows, but no ads for Coke or Toyota.
As to cable, cable channels didn't have commercials back in the day. Nor were the movies censored. Nor did thay have those goddamned annoying logos at the bottom right of the screen.
These days it seems nobody gives a damn about the audience. And they wonder why people are leaving in droves?
Re:and... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it not okay just to coast along when you're on a good thing already?
I think it's drilled into students in business school (if not earlier) that perpetual growth is the only reasonable goal.
A few years ago, I had an opportunity to tag along with a graduate business school trip to Japan (a parent was the faculty chaperon for the trip.) On the trip, we met a diverse selection of Japanese CEOs and executives. One of the most interesting to me was the head of a Sake brewer who was running the business that had been in his family since the early 1600s. It wasn't really his responses that were enlightening to me, but the questions the students asked. After asking basic questions about sales and profits (which were apparently relatively flat, as beer is becoming more popular among Japanese youth than Sake), he had to endure a string of questions asking about his plans for increasing market share, overseas expansion and even creating new product lines that would be more popular with today's youth.
His answer was almost identical to every single question...it basically boiled down to, "I just want to run my family's company the way my ancestors have. I want to make the best Sake I can possibly make and I want to provide for my family and leave the business to my sons. My profits provide a comfortable life for my family and myself and our Sake has won many awards. So I have no plans to ..." (where ... is whatever he was asked about)
It not only went on for nearly the entire hour he answered questions, but the discussions at dinner later indicated that none of the students could understand his point of view. Everyone kept saying how naive he was and everything they would do if they were in his position. It was disheartening to think that these students were the future business leaders of America.
if a commitment to privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
results in more customers, or a perceived lack of one results in less customers, than a privacy policy directly translates into dollars, plus or minus, at some point
meaning, what i am saying and writing is not idealism, and is in fact in better touch with capitalist principles that you allude to but apparently understand less than i do
anyone can regurgitate simpleminded cynicism. what you write is even more useless than the airheaded idealism you dislike
it is unfortunate that so many loud boorish people think that their typical easy cynicism is a replacement for actual intelligence. frankly, its worse than the intolerant blind idealists out there. at least they can be interesting sometimes, no matter how flawed
but cynics are simply a dime a dozen, boring, and utterly useless, but unfortunately, always very loud and insistent on entering the conversation loudly announcing what everyone already knows as if it is some grand epiphany they think they have a monopoly on
lowest common denominator cynicism is not a replacement for intelligence. please, some of you shut up and think for once, then try to say something interesting for once
Adblok is a RESULT of abuse of ads. (Score:1, Insightful)
Adblok is a RESULT of abuse of ads. What was evil was the continuing attempts to make adverts MORE Than the content. Popups. Then when people stopped that, popunders. Then blaring flash ads. Then even more scurrilous ads.
Until it became MANDATORY to have adblock, because without it your computer is hijacked by ad companies.
And those ad companies don't own the website. So when they're busy and running slow, the site you WANT to see is waiting for the ads. But the adfarm is fine because it WANTS to be busy!
Without flashblock, noscript and other advanced techniques, the site you WANT to see is blank while doubleclick.net is falling down.