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?"
how much would you pay? (Score:1, Interesting)
Ads as social media? (Score:4, Interesting)
I quite like the idea that you could use ads that you pay for (that don't cost much) to advertise your party or to post silly messages to your friends. Of course the privacy implications of what google needs to know in order to be able to do this are absolutely terrifying, but the idea remains cute.
Additionally, I liked the idea when they turned it on its head, saying that certain individuals can agree to receive adverts of a certain type and you can then pay to have your adverts targeted to those people... such as recruiters.
I wonder the extent to which these ideas are just that : great ideas, but completely impractical in the real world, but this kind of brainstorming is what gives rise to the really good ideas in the end anyway, so its not surprising that they should be having this sort of discussion internally.
Time to split off the search arm? (Score:3, Interesting)
You never know, a bit of a break-up may even be good for them.
Re:I don't see any ads at all... (Score:5, Interesting)
ironic (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe this will give them an idea of how it feels to have your privacy invaded.
Re:I understand... (Score:3, Interesting)
Targeted Ads (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I don't see any ads at all... (Score:4, Interesting)
All that they need to do on Google's pages is to move away from graphics and iFrames and on to embedded text. I could put adverts on my site very easily that AdBlock+ couldn't catch because there would be no easy way to distinguish it from text. On Google's own pages, it wouldn't make a difference about counting views etc, because they're already capturing that data and can handle it in code. The only problem (for them) comes in tracking one person across multiple sites since the "simple HTML with no markers screaming 'I am an advert'" ads wouldn't be able to share cookies.
Re:I don't see any ads at all... (Score:1, Interesting)
The only drawback of paying is that once you pay for something, no matter what, they know who you are when you use their services. So they can with 100% of accuracy collect data (even if they may look insignificant at first) about you.
Re:I gotta say... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have worked at businesses who wouldn't even think of bothering with these questions. Instead it would look like this: "Would selling the stored info we have on our customers help this FQ's numbers? Yes? Get legal to sign the contract, and the DBA to do an export of the database and E-mail [1] it to the client."
[1]: These are PHBs talking, so they wouldn't understand a 1TB database export can't be E-mailed.
Re:I gotta say... (Score:1, Interesting)
So you'd rather all the businesses in the world providing valuable services shut their doors to provide you the service you want?
Not even close. I don't even know where you pulled that from TBH. My demands on my cell phone provider were reasonable. I wanted the discount rate that they offer to new customers. I've been their customer for X number of years, I should be the one getting the deals, not the new customers. The longer I've been a valued and paying customer, the more freebees and discounts I should get. Anyone who thinks different is a moron. Just because the businesses today are doing things backwards doesn't mean I'm going to fit into their little mold. Companies today just want more and more customers, but they don't care if they loose them afterwards. They should be working to keep current customers on by inciting them with deals. Instead they know they can bring someone in and lock them in for 3 years. Problem with that plan? The irate customer is going to tell you to shove you shit service after the 3 year plan is over, and you lost that customer, forever.
Some customer requests are out there, but nothing in my post was unreasonable. Far from it; it was simply me demanding that the company stop screwing me over at every turn.
When a company shows me some respect for being a loyal customer, they will continue to get my business.
Re:I gotta say... (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the first lessons I learned in business went something like this ...
Boss: The customer is always right
Me: Even when they are wrong?
Boss: Even when they are wrong.
Me: How can that be?
Boss: It just is. You make the customer believe they are alright, and business will take care of itself.
A few weeks later, I was in front of a customer, who was OBVIOUSLY not getting what he wanted, and I was trying my hardest to accommodate the customer, my boss steps in, and asks the guy what he wanted, the guy said "Fire that asshole" pointing to me. Boss looks at me and says "Your fired, get your things, I'll get your check".
The look of horror on the customer was priceless. I got up and went into the sales office while my boss negotiated with the customer my being fired for a deal (same deal I was making). The customer made one last request as part of the deal, that I don't lose my job. ;)
I learned a lot from that boss. Take care of customers, because without customers, you have no business.
Re:I gotta say... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have seen this from time to time, a statement "companies are required to maximize profit", but I cannot find any specific law that spells out how 'maximize' is measured. I looked into wiki and found this reference [wikipedia.org], but nothing stated measureable requirements. In fact, the only "requirement" is that they make a profit, how ever that profit is measured.
I may be quite comfortable making 6% profit while someone else may choose 10% profit. The rationalization that corporations have to "maximize" by law is a fallacy used to justify actions that tend to have negative impact on societies as a whole, but do wonders for a small set of individuals pocket. Robin Hood was created because greed so impacted Sherwood, the suffering of the people overcame the rule of law. Robin took from the rich because they basically were taking from the poor (land, wages, people). Don't like redistribution of wealth, don't want to take from the rich, then rich should become more aware of the effects of the imbalance of greed and correct them. Job creation locally on up to start. Fair trade practices (not free), and getting back to setting long term profit goals to smooth out the up and downs of the market.
Eric Schmidt is the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:and... (Score:3, Interesting)
If other shareholders file a lawsuit and win, the situation might change. But right now they do control the company, regardless of being a publicly traded company and having a minority in shares, and this probably won't change as long as Google continues to raise their profits and reduce their operating expenses as they have been doing year after year [wired.com].
Re:Google reality check. (Score:3, Interesting)
Again, with the exception of Nazi Germany where you HAD to sell out people who were in one of the groups slated for death I can't think of many laws make you evil by sheer compliance with them.
If the government's law officials request or order Google to hand over information, that's not evidence that Google doesn't respect user privacy, it's merely evidence that Google is being law abiding citizens and helping the police track down a criminal. I would do the same if they asked me to and I had the ability to help. Now if Google went out of their way to help the government track down people who had unpopular views unconstitutionally that could be considered evil but that's falling into the Nazi laws territory which I feel is too extreme to use as a comparison for anything Google is currently engaged in.