This week’s primary readings and listenings all touched on issues of internet user privacy, especially in relation to searching and browsing. I’ll summarize each piece here, and then comment on them a bit afterwards.
Scroogled by Cory Doctorow is a short story imagining the kind of “worst-case scenario” that the interviewer asked the Google-worker about in the “Search Me” interview in On the Media. In the story, Greg, a Google employee comes back from a vacation in Mexico to find that Google has produced programs for the Department of Homeland Security to use in immigration. They find certain information on him based on the adds that come up through his gmail, and ask him questions that make him realize the “mix-ups” that can result from information compiled and interpreted through search practices. He is so freaked out that he goes to see his Google-friend, who explains how deeply enmeshed Google has become with government and surveillance technologies. The situation escalates when she clears his search history (a Google lobotomy) and then finds out that others start using her clearing program to clear information on political candidates, and she and Greg find themselves in no-going-back situations in relation to the programs they have generated and worked on, and how they become prisoners of their own technologies.
The Search Me podcast on “On the Media” is an interview with Marissa Meyer, the Google VP of Search Products and User Experience, who talks about the new steps Google is taking to “anonymize” user information. Meyer claims that the internet providers have more information than google, so while google compiles information, it is linked with IP numbers, whereas it is the internet providers that can link IP numbers with names and addresses. She talks about the difficult decision Google made to erase search-generated data after 9 months rather than 18 months, and describes it as a decision that will make it harder for them to improve using the information they gather (which she insists is the only reason why they gather information), but that it is a sacrifice they see worthwhile because the consumers want that privacy (which she implies is a false sense of privacy anyway, or at least a misdirected one). The interviewer wonders if privacy should be made easier using something like a privacy meter, and Meyer counters him by saying that a privacy meter is an oversimplification that would ultimately not serve the users, and that it would be irresponsible for google to develop such an oversimplified technology.
In Short of Anonymous, also from “On the Media”, Alissa Cooper, Chief Computer Scientist from the Center for Democracy and Technology, says that even if Google doesn’t have bad intentions, there is a problem that even if they don’t compile information and package it in a format that is simple for others to use, they are still compiling information which is then available for use. She gives the example of Google maps, that if a person often does a search from one location, you could deduce that it is a location where they could be found. She is concerned that there is a lot of conversation about the “anonymization” process, but not a lot of consensus on what that means, or at what point in that process information should be considered anonymous. She concludes by agreeing with the interviewer that laws and industry standards around internet privacy are important, but should be accompanied also by clear controls for users.
Nicholas Carr’s The Omnigoogle talks about the growth of “cute little Google into Omnigoogle” through its success in using advertising and search information to tailor new advertising. The article explains Google’s business strategy…“Google wants information to be free because as the cost of information falls it makes more money,” that is to say, that Google profits on selling advertising space on free products, so the more that’s free, the more advertising space they get to sell. With the God or Satan of Google, writes the author, “it can be difficult to distinguish between when you’re doing good (giving the people what they want) and when you’re doing bad (squelching competition).”
Paul Boutin’s You are What you Search talks about the leaking of search terms by AOL, a real life worst-case scenario when user search terms are leaked and everyone can see the users by their number and their porn search terms, unwanted pregnancy-related questions, etc.
These pieces together raise important questions of responsibility and make clear the gaps in responsibility made possible through differing definitions of certain terms (privacy, security, anonymity). The Google-worker is quick to say that Google is not responsible for problematic uses of search histories, but rather it is the internet providers that have the capacity and therefore should be faulted for these “slip-ups.” At the same time, the Google-line seems to show concern for how irresponsible it would be for them to install a privacy meter that is simple for users, perhaps because it would give users a false sense of security. The other interview brings in the question of legal responsibility for misused search data, and would like to see mechanisms in place for users to feel more empowered to take responsibility of their security settings.
The discourse of responsibility makes me think of questions and debates around citizenship and democracy, and the rights and responsibilities of citizens. The Google-worker paternalistically implies to us that if we user/citizens want the most efficient services, we should give up some of our hang-ups on privacy, but that she understands our concerns and just wants us to know that the benevolent Google is willing to trade in some efficiency for the will of the people. The Scroogled short story also touches on this Google as Government analogy, of course, in presenting a picture of a Google powered system.
Are we Google-citizens, and if so, what is our orientation towards our great leader? Someone who I told about the Google-fast said to me something along the lines of “you are lucky to have Google, it makes your life easier, you shouldn’t complain,” a line which sounds identical to the accusations against those who protest and critique the U.S. government. It is the same logic of entrapment, that the only reason U.S. citizens supposedly have the ability to protest is because we are allowed that right by the body that we are protesting, as though the only alternative possible is one of doom and imprisonment. It’s a kind of thinking which makes the formula look like that I can only get personal freedom in relation to the oppression of others, making it seem like I must choose between myself and others (thinking again about the game theory issues from last week). With Google, I am sacrificing my privacy for the benefit of a larger cause, and if I don’t make those sacrifices, I will be keeping the Google geniuses from helping me with new technologies.
The power of the article about Google’s business operation is that it reminds us that all of the free services offered by Google are certainly not separate, but in fact embedded in its profitmaking, a wake-up call for when we become seduced by the image of the generous and cool Google which is just trying to make our lives easier, and only profits off this by chance.
Another point that struck me as interesting…the use of the word “anonymization,” derived from anonymous but describing the process and the shades of anonymity. Showing this as a process allows us to think about what we really mean when we say something is anonymous or not, and what is at stake in our quest for anonymity?
Lastly, all of this has me thinking about risk, as I am reading Ulrich Beck’s new book World At Risk. The second chapter of the book is called “Relations of Definition as Relations of Domination: Who Decides What is and What isn’t a Risk?” Looking at the different uses and definitions of terms like privacy, security, anonymity highlights the process of defining, and allows us to wonder who defines what, according to what criteria, and in what kind of process. It leaves me wanting to know more about how different people are intervening in internet privacy politics, using what definitions and terms, and in the name of what collectivities?
Possibly Relevant Posts:
- Mashups Week Two- Maps and More (8) | Franklin
- We Built this city on Google (6) | Lauren Marie
- Travelogue 3 – Riding the Google Wave (5) | Jason
13 Comments
I found this week’s material both insightful and terrifying. The technology from “Scroogled” is already in place; it makes you wonder if the Constitution and our government’s system of “checks & balances” are strong enough to prevent the realization of such a society. There aren’t many scenarios I’ve imagined that would be worse than this.. Perhaps in the coming years we’re going to see an influx in film and literature of a new “cyber-horror” type genre. To focus on the present day rather than a dystopian future, Boutin’s “You Are What You Search” illustrates just how invasive chronicling users’ search terms can be. Individual searches may be quite embarrassing to users. However I find the larger issue to be the fact that it’s possible to draw inferences and conclusions about individuals’ lives by tracking search terms over time [example: the AOL user who, through her search terms, made it obvious that she was progressing through pregnancy]. I’m definitely going to take further measures to preserve my privacy. The readings/podcasts are a wake up call.
So after reading the Scroogled article, I became a little apprehensive about my use of Google (but I enjoyed the mustard/hotdog metaphor made by Carr). Although I started to wonder if there was a difference between the data collected for my Google user account and my I.P. address. My mother came over yesterday and checked her gmail account. She usually utilizes different I.P. addresses. So is that information tied to me, tied to her, tied to both of us? I’ve been using Bing all week, and I know that Microsoft now has a lot of information about me including the fact that yesterday I was searching for a Mediterranean restaurant in the 10012 zip code. I wonder what ads they will serve up to me!
It is all for advertising dollars, but the scary part is the other applications of this information. I am in a class within the department taught by the head honcho of CBS research. Last week he told us that ideally the networks and cable channels will be able to match what you watch on TV (information garnered from the cable box sitting on your set) and your real life purchases (those shoppers cards that record what you buy and give you discounts or even credit cards). From his discussion, it seemed like this isn’t far off. That itself scared me. The information we send out into the world isn’t just volunteered by actively typing in words into Google, but in hidden ways like flipping through the channels or buying Diet Coke.
JM- Dystopian is definitely the word that came to mind as I read this week. There is a scene in minority report where Tom Cruise’s character goes to the GAP that goes a long the same vein. (I can’t find the clip anywhere but on youtube
)
I just commented on Sara’s travelogue which focuses on our faltering attention span and the internet. Something that creeps me out: The less we’re able to concentrate, the more links we click. The more links we click, the more information Google collects, and the more the better they can feed advertisements (meaning more money). So wouldn’t the Google Powers That Be push for a new society based on distraction?
I think you made a great point about the term “anonymization.” It implies the the data isn’t archived anonymously at first, and that a process is required to make it anonymous later on – which means that at some point it isn’t anonymous at all, and that anonymity is completely reliant upon Google’s corporate policy decision.
while reading Doctorow’s story, I was getting flashbacks of when I read 1984. Orwell wrote it so well then, and in a sense, I feel like we definitely live in an Orwellian future. one of these days, they will figure out that I cannot stand to watch videos about the crazy things cats do and they will put me in a cage and force me to only watch those videos and make me give up my individuality and liberty.
I am totally paranoid now. I’m going to browse privately and monitor my cookies. but the help entry for ‘private browsing’ only says that any fields I fill in won’t be remembered, and stuff like that. not that what I browse for won’t be recorded.
I wasn’t taken in by Google’s attempt to say that cutting down from 18 months to 9 months is a ’sacrifice’ for them. whatever. NONE of the ads that show up in my gmail are of any relevance to me – I have never clicked even one of them.
I will be honest: there’s a part of me that doesn’t mind that so much of who I am is online – we all have facebook pages and such. when I start seeing examples of how that can be misused is when I get nervous, and this weeks readings/listenings did that very well!
BUT, consider how many people actually want to be on the internet and have a presence. isn’t that part of it? so many of us have our facebook pages, myspace pages, personal websites, and other social network sites (including iGoogle!) where we feed in so much about ourselves that is out there for anyone to find and use. why the sudden paranoia? does this mean that google and others have to find that balance between enabling our narcissism and using it for (or against) us?
Helen Nissenbaum, a professor in the MCC department, developed a piece of software with Daniel Howe called track me not. Its an application that runs in the background of your web broswer that submits random searches to your search engine of choice so as to confuse it and hinder its ability to develop a profile/pattern around your search habits. Their philosophy for privacy is to hide your identity in a cloud of random searches. What do you think of this? I wonder how this would mess with Doctrow’s world of the DHS using google ads to develop profiles.
Again Isaiah Berlin comes to mind in all of this. He says that we are doomed to choose. In this case, we are doomed to make the sacrifice of privacy for the sake of efficiency, or sacrifice efficiency for privacy…
Like the comments of others this week, it certainly was eye opening to be confronted with how much data we are making available online, and how truly easy for others to take advantage of this information.
Furthermore, the week without Google was an incredibly interesting exercise in forcing me to realize exactly how much personal and sensitive information I have kept on Google services. Even more was in many cases some of the only copies of these sensitive personal and work documents were hosted on Gmail or Google Docs- good lord.
But Sava brings up an excellent point- while we may be concerned with our data getting out on the Internet, we simultaneously voluntarily give it up to be a part of such things. As well, if we refuse to manage our own digital identities, we run the risk of someone else doing so, often maliciously. One can look at the issue surrounding fake ghostwritten blogs, and twitters taken out in other people’s names.
While reading the articles on Google’s services for this week, I got the image that Google is like a caller on a carnival midway. Like an often rigged carnival game, you are lured in with a chance to win something for next to nothing, but only end up losing time and time again. Whereas with Google most individual don’t mind losing their private data in exchange for the free, and often services they offer.
“Just because I’m paranoid, doesn’t mean somebody isn’t watching me.”–My dad on the phone tonight quoting a T-shirt.
Now that I’ve made some of you laugh, I’ll offer another perspective to this interesting discussion. I cast myself as a Microsoft lover and Google hater… this is imprinted from my former company culture. The truth is, I am suspicious of ALL powerful technology companies, and they are growing more and more alike by the day.
In our core MCC seminar, we read Adorno and Horkheimer’s epic rant on the mass deception of the culture industry. In it, they argue that differentiation is, to put in 2009 terms, nothing but fan boy fiction. I agree with 90% of that view based on my experience in the tech PR world. We craft “messages” about product differentiation, and we “place” stories in the press with that same message. For instance, I worked with a reporter (and friend who now works at Microsoft) on a cover story for InfoWorld about living WITH Google (specifically Docs) for a week. The message was that Microsoft makes better productivity software (Office). Is there really any difference though? That’s a fan girl question.
Another proof to me that there is little to no difference comes in the analysis of the press coverage of the tech titans over the years. When Microsoft first started out some 25 years ago, they were media darlings, just like Google. Microsoft could do no evil, even though this was not the company mantra. As they became a monopoly (based on the PC ecosystem Carr describes), the narrative in the press changed for the worse. Now, post DOJ conviction, Microsoft is considered the new IBM. IBM being the one, in press terms, that is irrelevant and hanging over a giant walker. Google, I would argue, is following the exact same trajectory. Their narrative is turning to one of too much power and the potential consequences of it. I predict they will be convicted as a monopoly in short time. Next stop: IBM. Facebook is the new Google.
Carr differentiates the two companies based on mission. I’ve always appreciated Microsoft’s simplicity in the profit department–no religion, just cash. Google’s rhetoric is far more nefarious and I love to see that smug halo tarnish. Do no evil. If you buy that, Franklin has a carnival dog for you. I digress.
So I said I bought about 90% of the “no differentiation” bit. The 10% of doubt, or rather faith, comes from the engineers I know at companies like Microsoft, Yahoo and Apple. (I’m sure they dwell at the Googleplex, too.) These people are truly innovators. They are passionate about making great software to make our lives better. I believe in them, but when we see Google, Microsoft AND Yahoo condemning people to nightmares in places like China by turning over search data… well, I get a little paranoid. Time to try out the “track me not.” We didn’t hear about it from you, Gabe.
I’ve honestly always found Google’s “do no evil” motto slightly creepy. If that’s their motto, it implies that everything they do do is not evil. I don’t necessarily want a corporate giant dictating terms of morality. Plus, very little evil actually happens because people wake up, twirl their mustaches, and go “I shall do evil! Bwahaha!”. The road to hell, etc.
It’s scary, but is there a real way to opt out? I know I’m definitely not going to last after Tuesday not using Google. There are ways to mitigate what kind of information you send–track me not, etc–but it seems like part of being a part of the modern world is giving up some rights to privacy. Is there anything we can do, or are we doomed to a less private world?
Great summary, I especially found the Omnigoogle article interesting because I recently interviewed for a job at an online start-up company that sells an organizational program to advertisers who buy online ad space on search engines like Google (the program is called Clickable, if anyone is interested). Both of the men who interviewed me had previously worked for Google, and when I told them about our Google-free week they thought it was the most ridiculous thing ever, one of them was like “Why would anyone want to do that!?” It was pretty amusing.
Also, with regards to privacy and anonymity online, I recently read Cove v.2 by Lawrence Lessig (I recommend it to anyone interested in online regulation and privacy), and he harps on the idea that the internet was originally seen as an uncontrollable space that could not be regulated, where people could do whatever they wanted without any serious repercussions, which obviously isn’t true today, but Lessig argues that there needs to be more regulation (perhaps an online ID cards that identifies who we are, where were from, age, etc.) in order for the internet to be a productive, safe place. Whether or not I agree with him is indifferent, but Google privatizing information can be seen as both good and bad (good in that it can’t be shared with advertisers, and bad in that the less we know about people using the internet, the more harmful they can be).
I think Sava made an interesting point:
“so many of us have our facebook pages, myspace pages, personal websites, and other social network sites (including iGoogle!) where we feed in so much about ourselves that is out there for anyone to find and use. why the sudden paranoia? does this mean that google and others have to find that balance between enabling our narcissism and using it for (or against) us?”
It seems to me that privacy concerns are just exacerbated by the context of a particular culture, e.g., US society’s exhibitionistic tendencies and our fascination with fame, combined with our historical fears regarding Big Brothers and a loss of personal agency. I would be interested in knowing the fervor of debate within other Google-dependent cultures, which are perhaps more used to their governments or other outsiders knowing more about their personal business than we are. (In Germany, for example, asking a woman during a job interview if she is planning to get pregnant is legal, as is asking someone’s age.) Perhaps in these contexts, Google collecting one’s searches for garden fertilizer or hotel rooms in London is less problematic to users, and there will be little incentive for Google to change its methods in these markets at all. Maybe Google will then adjust its privacy policies according to how little or much a particular geographic/user base squawks.
Therse were all some fascinating articles/listenings. The Scroogled article makes me think of when there was a huge fuss about Google willingly complying with the Chinese government to block certain pages from coming up when they were searched from within China. This was the first I had heard about Google cooperating with any government to the possible detriment of their citizens.
The Omnigoogle became very relevant to me today in my work, as i was translating an article about the legal battle between Google and luxury brands (specifically LVMH) over the Google AdWords system, where Google lets brand names be key words that can be purchased by advertisers so that their ad comes up when that specific key word is searched for. This also leads to the promotion of sites that sell counterfeiting luxury goods. Google has to pay LVMH some damages back in 2005, but so far it looks like the European Justice Court is siding with Google, saying that selling the name of a brand as key word does not damage the company’s name… The article isn’t posted yet, but i’ll put it up when it is.
I think the most important article that was presented here as a way of furthering our discussion was Scroogled. I believe that this is the perfect jump off point for a “so what?” conversation about what all of this is important to us anyways. Most of us already know how much of our private information is floating around the world wide web, being dissected by large corporations in order to give us “what we want.” But what does this mean for the future? What’s next?
The Future:
http://consumerist.com/5040049/facial-recognition-technology-%252B-video-screens–creepy-dunkin-donuts-ads
This article is one of many about a new technology that is being developed to better serve us what we want. We are photographed, stereotyped, and responded to as such. Could there be a more demoralizing form of advertising for our culture? Not only does it perpetuate racial stereotyping, but it also, to some extent, perpetuate our ideas of youthfulness as it attempts to stereotype your visual age. The creepier part of this whole thing is thinking about what will happen once we find a way to integrate this software with the data compiled by people such as Google. Or what happens when our facebook information is fed into such a system? We bring ourselves that much closer to a world, much like that of the movie Minority Report where there is nowhere you can go where technology cannot recognize you and even call you out by name.