Online Privacy

Google's public policy blog said a new Wired article by Steven Levy is "a must-read for policymakers who want to understand online advertising." 

First, I agree; there is a lot to learn from the article.

Two Google leaders separately proposed two new publicacy arguments against Internet privacy that I had never heard publicly before. 

• These new publicacy assertions, underscore the core premise of this series, that there is growing tension on the privacy-publicacy faultline meaning online privacy earthquakes are coming. It's less a matter of if, but when.
  • FYI: Publicacy is the antonym of privacy and it is the belief and/or business model that online information is public, not private.  

First, Vint Cerf, Google's Internet Evangelist was quoted by InternetNews saying: 

"Google's algorithm helps the company "get inside people's heads even before they know they might leave," said Laszlo Bock, who runs human resources for the company." See the Wall Street Journal article: "Google Searches for Staffing Answers."  

• The Journal article explains that in an attempt to retain employees, Google crunches employee data in a mathmatical formula to determine which employees are at most risk of leaving. As is Google's standard practice, "Google officials are reluctant to share details of the formula..."

What intrigued me was the bold claim above by Google's head of personnel is that the company has endeavored to, and succeeded in, systematically getting in "peoples heads" to learn their intimate concerns before someone even figures out what they are feeling.

Why this incident is so illustrative of the increasing tension between people's expectation of privacy -- and the publicacy business model to make money off of people's private information -- is that it spotlights how far publicacy companies may delve into this privacy grey area while at the same time not disclosing the details necessary to determine if the practice creates a privacy problem.  

Let's connect some dots.

New evidence continues to spotlight the Open Internet's growing security problem. 

Reports that Google's CEO Eric Schmidt sees no reason to step down from Apple's Board in the face of a public FTC antitrust investigation over it, is emblematic of Google's long pattern of disrespect for the rule of law in competition, privacy, and copyright/trademark matters.

Google's consistent pattern of behavior is to push the envelope of legality farther than any other entity is willing to, and then arbitrage that unique edge, for (anti-)competitive advantage as long as possible.

"All our information is being sucked into the cloud. Privacy is over." That was the bold declaration of Attorney Steve Masur at DCIA's P2P Media Summit per Washington Internet Daily.

• Wow. As stark an assessment that that is, what really disturbs me is the thought process and tech ethic that underlies this view.
• Mr. Masur is not alone, he is part of a growing publicacy mentality/movement that looks at privacy as:
  • A neandrethal expectation in the Internet Age,
  • Buzz-kill for Internet innovators, and
  • Road-kill for the cloud-computing bus speeding down the information super-highway.

My pushback here is the blind worship of technology or tech-determinism.

• I define tech-determinism to be:
  • if technology or innovation can do it, it must be good; and
  • if something stands in the way of technology and innovation, like privacy, it is in the way and should be terminated. 

Did it ever occur to the tech determinists that if there is no privacy in the cloud, many won't go there?

• Most users appreciate that technology should work for them, they don't work for technology.

Privacy isn't over. 

New evidence continues to spotlight the Open Internet's growing security problem. 

• The growing catalogue of evidence from mainstream sources is getting harder and harder to ignore. See previous parts of the series:  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII & VIII.

"Internet security threat report finds malicious activity continues to grow at a record pace -- Web based attacks evolve as hackers target end-user information; Underground economy continues to thrive." Symantec

High profile Internet security/safety/privacy problems continue to spotlight the Open Internet's growing security problem.

"Computer hacking attacks soar as gangs focus on financial data" -- FT

• "Computer hackers stole more sensitive records last year than in the previous four combined, with ATM cards and Pin information growing in popularity as targets, according to a study..."

"Computer Attackers target popular sites in quest for profit" IBD

• Symantec...  "found new varieties of malware rose 265% last year vs. 2007."
• "This is about fraud and theft — I don't think there's any doubt in anyone's mind," said Dean Turner, director of Symantec's global intelligence network unit. "Where this is headed is not good for anybody."

"Computer Spies Breach Fighter Jet Project" WSJ

• "...He spoke of his concerns about the vulnerability of U.S. air traffic control systems to cyber infiltration, adding "our networks are being mapped." He went on to warn of a potential situation where "a fighter pilot can't trust his radar."

"New Military Comand to Focus on Cybersecurity" WSJ

Why is one of the most-serious identified internet/cybersecurity risks currently affecting the Internet and network operators not on the FCC's radar screen?

• More specifically, why does a search of the FCC's website for the term "conficker" return zero results? (see below)

A Google search on "conficker"returned 4.86 million results.

Where is the line between preserving privacy and promoting publicacy? Most would agree there is a line in the sand somewhere where most everyone would agree that publicacy models (i.e. businesses that monetize making information that was previously private -- public) should not cross.

However, in reality there is a big wide grey area around that "line" that few have really thought about, or even tried to define, until recently. The causes of that vast privacy-publicacy grey area are at least fourfold.