Google

Saul Hansell's New York Times blog post on "The FTC Bully Pulpit on Privacy" discussing the FTC privacy chief's views on privacy, did a public service in flagging an unnecessary and problematic gap in the Federal Trade Commission's protection of Americans' 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.

Growth: 39% YoY revenue growth on a ~$20b base, in a slowing global economy is impressive. Hats off to Google. Lots of network effects at work as Google sites revenue grew 42% YoY.

Tone: I did note the slightest whif of humility this quarter that external factors had some effect on Google's business, in stark contrast to last quarter's more bold statement that Google saw no effect of the external market or economy on Google's business.  

DoubleClick: As I suspected, CEO Schmidt said in an answer to a question, that Doubleclick was going well but that he would not break out any information -- in Google's well-established sorry-Charlie-style... no insight or guidance for you... The only thing interesting that was said about DoubleClick was indirect, in that Sergey Brin said that the big problem in display is that it is highly-fragmented." Couple that with CEO Schmidt indicating that Google was only months away fom offering a one-stop advertising solution, one can surmise that Doubleclick will indeed prove to be a material growth kicker to help Google fight off some of the natural drag of the law of large numbers.  

Mention most worth follow-up: In Q&A my ears perked up when the CFO explained part of a cost jump was "legal costs" and CEO Schmidt chimed in that these costs were "bursty." I am amazed that a $20b company that gives minimal detail would mention that legal costs were a factor. Do you know how unusually big a legal number has to be to pop up in an earnings call? Did they settle some case that we don't know about? or is the Viacom-Youtube discovery work a lot more costly than Google has let on? Something is amiss and worthy of followup.   

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:

Anyone interested in Google's increasing dominance or the Google-Yahoo partnership should read Andrew Orlowski's great piece in The Register: "Google the mother of antirust battles?"

• It is always helpful to get an insightful and different perspective from "across the pond."   

Blogging from the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing, there was a very surprising development several minutes ago.

• Chairman Kohl characterized as "pretty explosive stuff" how Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith recounted what Yahoo Ceo Jerry Yang told Microsoft last month in a meeting with several witnesses.
• Per Microsoft's Smith: Jerry Yang said that the search market was "bi-polar" with Google on one pole and others on the other pole.
  • Yang indicated that Yahoo was going to join the Google "pole" because the other pole was not viable. 

Under oath, Senator Spector followed up on the Chairman's interchange and asked Brad Smith if he stood by this characterization of CEO Yang's "bipolar" comments -- and he replied "absolutely!"

• When Senator Spector asked, in a prosecutor's style, if Yahoo's General Counsel  was at that meeting, he said he was but that he did "not recall" Yang's "bi-polar" comment and disagreed with Microsoft's characterization. 

As anyone in Washington appreciates, and Senators Kohl and Spector certainly appreciated, someone was not telling the truth.

• I strongly believe that the DOJ will want to depose all the witnesses at that meeting, under oath and under penalty of perjury, about that comment and whether it is true or not. 

If Microsoft's testimony was true, which I believe it was, because of the serious personal risk of perjury to Mr. Smith, it is "pretty explosive stuff" as Chairman Kohl described. 

In advance of the Senate and House antitrust hearings on Google-Yahoo, I thought it would be useful to debunk some of the primary antitrust myths you will likely hear.

Myth #1: There can’t be an antitrust problem as long as consumers are just one click away from a competitive search engine.

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.