| > Could you point me to the obvious internal disquiet? It was to this [0] article I was referring. I don't think he was misrepresented, but the Larry Page quote was really beside the point. Edit: reworded the paragraphs below for clarity > impending but vaguely characterized misuse of that data. There have already been a number of occasions where either Google's network was compromised [1], a rogue employee has misused data [2] or users have had their accounts hacked [3] en masse. And of course, on top of this, various government and intelligence agencies have had access to your data [4]. None of that should be the least bit shocking or surprising, because such outcomes are inevitable when a large company holds so much data. I'm not going to blame Google; none of those incidents served their interests and indeed compared to most companies Google are unusually transparent and responsive about these issues. But knowing that these things will happen regardless of their good intentions, Google should seek to minimise and not maximise the amount of data they hold on us. > > Once they have the data and it's been mined for further meaning, it's inevitable they'll find new uses for it. > This does not seem at all self-evident to me. Perhaps I should have said, "it's inevitable they'll find new ways to make money from it". They're a company, after all. > In fact, it seems to me that Google's incentives are such that it's pretty much in their interest to use the data well. [...] And they have every incentive to keep their users' trust. Well, we could say that about any company, and yet abuses occur regularly. If you set a companies profit motive against the best interests of it's customers, the cost of a breach of trust will simply be factored into the equation. Unfortunately it is frequently the case that while a breach of trust may be costly, it's not always costly enough. I don't think there's anything exceptional about Google here. They're not immune to corruption. Google has served us so well so far because our interests are aligned; it's the surest way to prevent an abuse of trust in the future and why I'm so concerned about their new strategy. [0] http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/24/larry-page-to-googlers-if-y... [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01... [2] http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-09-14/tech/29992918... [3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/01/google-hack... [4] http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/ |
The occasions of Google's data being compromised are notable for being exceptions, I think. Of course you're right that there's always the potential for misuse, and the only way to avoid misuse completely is to never gather data. It's parallel to the argument against big government. It's also parallel to the argument against nuclear power. But in each of these cases it's a matter of cost/benefit and risk analysis. You have to weight the risk and cost of misuse against the benefit of Google having that data. It seems that you're ok with the data Google has collected up til now, but you're worried about more data collection in the future. That's valid, but to me the benefits far outweigh the risk/cost.
Part of this is that Google's structured in such a way that its incentives are to keep the data private (within its own network) because it makes money by having sole proprietorship over it.
I think a salient distinction here is between privacy and confidentiality. Google and Facebook both collect a lot of private information about their users. But Google makes money by keeping that private data confidential, while Facebook makes money by selling the data. These are the companies' respective structural traits. And I think that's what makes Google unique.
> Google has served us so well so far because our interests are aligned; it's the surest way to prevent an abuse of trust in the future and why I'm so concerned about their new strategy.
Can you elaborate as to how this new strategy no longer aligns our interests with Google's?