Online Privacy

Following up on my House testimony on Internet privacy and how Google is by far the biggest threat to people's privacy, let me share some tid bits.

First, John Naughton of the Observer in the UK did a good piece: "Google is watching you. Ready for your close up?"      

• I was glad to see someone else pick up on my characterization of Google's mission as "megalomaniacal."
• A big thanks for Mr. Naughton flagging some hysterical video shorts on YouTube about Google as Big Brother.
  • If you have time for only one of the four, don't miss Google maps Part I. 

Second, if you are interested in how secure Google's system really is and how seriously Google responds to warnings of breaches in their privacy "walls", see this post: "Gaping Hole in Gmail privacy."

In my testimony Thursday on Internet privacy before Chairman Markey's House Internet Subcommittee, I documented for Congress the detailed case of how Google, which is subject to no Federal privacy laws, is the single biggest threat to Americans' privacy today.

• The evidence assembled here shows how Google's mission and culture are hostile to privacy, how Google's unprecedented scale and scope enable a breath-taking collection of intimate "blackmail-able" information, and how Google's track record is not worthy of trust.

From my testimony:

Case Study: How Google Systematically Threatens Americans’ Privacy:

To begin, I am not alone in believing Google’s privacy practices are a particularly serious consumer protection problem.

Below is the segment of my House testimony on Internet privacy where I list the exceptional depth and breadth of intimate (potentially blackmail-able) information that Google routinely collects and stores about you with their "unauthorized-web-surveillance" of Internet users - even users who have no idea Google is tracking/stalking them.

"Consider the depth and breadth of intimate information Google collects:

o What you search for;

• (a Ponemon Institute survey of 1,000 Google users found that 89% thought that their searches were private and 77% thought Google searches could not reveal their personal identities – wrong on both accounts.)

o Where you go on the web;

• Google has pervasive unauthorized-web-surveillance capability (web tracking/stalking) through a combination of Google’s search, Google’s cookies, DoubleClick’s ad-view recording capability, Google’s extensive content affiliate network of hundreds of thousands of sites, and the wide variety of Google apps.

o What you watch -- through YouTube;

I testified this morning on Internet Privacy issues before Chairman Markey's Internet Subcommittee. My Testimony.

My message was straightforward:

I got to wondering why so many supposed "public watchdogs" are AWOL on Google's threat to privacy, when I was reading the LA Times excellent editorial where they ponder the question: "Why is Youtube Hoarding Data?" 

Other than the New York Times last year taking Google to task for StreetView in "Watching your every move?" the editorial boards around the country have be uncharacteristicly silent on Google's unprecedented collection of more private information on more people than any time in history, while being ranked worst in the world on privacy by Privacy International.  

Drudge flagged an interesting article in the British Mail Online: "Big Brother: The Google cars that will photograph EVERY front door in Britain." 

• Seems like Google has struck a nerve in Britain, a country that normally tolerates more public surveillance than most because of such a long history with fighting terrorism.
• The Brits appear to be deeply offended with Google's massive attempt at private surveillance.
  • It's viewed as Google needlessly making it more efficient for bad guys, terrorists, burglars, stalkers, pedophiles, etc. to find your home/hearth and more easily do private citizens harm.
  • Google is unwittingly creating a dashboard and operating system for stalkers, criminals and terrorists -- and Big Brother.   

Google is rapidly becoming George Orwell's 1984 BIG BROTHER ENABLER.

• And how does this comport with Google's motto: "Don't be evil"?
• I wouldn't be surprised to see neighborhoods start to organize and post signs -- Google "Spycars" Prohibited/Unwelcome.

Kudos to the Washington Examiner for their great article exposing Google's "secrecy" in filming its privacy-invading StreetView product. Google guarding its privacy to invade yours! This is another precious example of Google's double standard philosophy of one set of rules for "don't be evil' Google and another set of rules for "the evil" unwashed masses.

• From the Examiner article: "Google officials say controversy about whether the filming violates privacy is partly to blame for the secrecy. Though the Mountain View-based company says public filming is legal, it fears angered residents might harass the drivers or tamper with the expensive cameras." 
  • Google of course must respect the 'privacy' of its drivers, while its drivers trample on the privacy of everyday citizens, or in Google parlance, the "targets" for their targeting advertising.

As many readers of this blog know, one of my pet peeves are double standards. Google's elitist and sanctimonious expectation that they don't have to follow the same rules as their user "targets" -- enthrones Google as the King of Double Standards!

Let's review just a few of their whopping double standards:

Don't miss the Op Ed by Richard Bennett today in the San Francisco Chronicle on net neutrality, Google's leadership of the issue, privacy, and the Google-Yahoo partnership.

• As usual, Richard is insightful, incisive and interesting.

Just learned that the Senate Judiciary SubCommittee on Antitrust has scheduled a hearing on the Google-Yahoo agreement for Tuesday July 15th, at 10:30 am.

• "The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing before the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights on “The Google-Yahoo Agreement and the Future of Internet Advertising” for Tuesday, July 15, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building. Chairman Kohl will preside. By order of the Chairman."

The House Judiciary Committee is expected to have a hearing that same afternoon on the Google-Yahoo deal, Internet competition and privacy.

This post documents the pile of evidence that Google just gives lip service to privacy matters.

• A few days ago, Google quietly and begrudgingly complied with California privacy law by putting a privacy link on its home page. Kudos to Saul Hansell's New York Times blog which spotlighted Google's privacy intransigence.

I will analyze Google's privacy policies to show why it was no fluke that privacy watchdog, Privacy International ranked Google worst in its world survey on privacy and called Google "hostile to privacy."

First, consider the way that Google finally posted its privacy link on its home page. While it may now be in compliance technically, it sure isn't embracing the letter or the spirit of privacy law.