News Clipping

Google’s privacy debacle displays firm’s true colors


Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    Google’s launch of its social network  "Buzz" and the ensuing outcry from consumers over they way it trampled on their privacy rights says a lot about the Internet giant’s corporate culture.

    Clearly the engineers run the place.  Their ethos: if you can do something and it increases efficiency, do it. Write the correct algorithm. Don’t involve people, if you can avoid it. Above all, don’t ask permission; you can always ask forgiveness.

    That’s what happened here. Google wanted to kick start its social network. Without asking, it turned Buzz on for every Gmail user.  The service then invaded your  contacts list and automatically set you up to "follow" those to whom you email the most.  The default mode was to publicly list who your were following and and who was following you. There was no easy way to block a follower or hide the lists from public view.

    Big Brother Google
    , using an algorithm, had set up your social network with whom, again in the default mode, you would share all your posts.  Sure, that was efficient, but didn’t someone at Google understand that people often email folks with whom they have no intention of sharing postings. Just because you email someone, it does not mean they are your friend. Consumers didn’t want some geek’s computer algorithm deciding who was in their Buzz network.

    Google responded with some fixes on Thursday that made it easier to block followers and to keep lists of followers and who a consumer was following private.

    Saturday the engineers went further and announced fixes that made the following list only suggestions that you had to affirmatively select before they became part of your network. However, the fixes had not arrived in my Gmail account as I wrote this. They also said they would add a Buzz tab under Gmail’s settings that would enable a consumer to hide Buzz or even completely disable it.

    Along with the changes came the expected request for forgiveness:

    "It’s been an exciting and challenging week for the Buzz team. We’ve been getting feedback via the Gmail help forums and emails from friends and family, and we’ve also been able to do something new: read the buzz about Buzz itself. We quickly realized that we didn’t get everything quite right. We’re very sorry for the concern we’ve caused and have been working hard ever since to improve things based on your feedback. We’ll continue to do so."

    This don’t-ask-permission-you-can-always-ask-foregiveness outlook is completely embedded in Google’s culture.  Consider Google’s project to digitize the world’s books.  Did the company bother to ask the rightsholders for permission? Nope. Google forged ahead because they could.

    I’m glad Google is making the changes to protect Buzz users’ privacy. At least now Google is not picking my friends. But the engineers aren’t there yet.  The default mode should be to share the least amount of information with the smallest group of people.  To share publicly should require an opt-in decision. It remains the default.

    And for the future, expect more of this sort of thing.  Privacy simply is hardly on the radar screens of Google engineers. They do seem capable of improving things when problems are brought to their attention.  Rest assured  that Consumer Watchdog will continue to focus their attention where it needs to be.

    , , ,

    Leave a Reply

    ルイヴィトンは旅行の芸術なので、ルイヴィトンは比較的人気の高いブランドで、現在は手動で機械的に混合してパッケージングを行っています。 ルイヴィトンiphoneケースの海外での価格は、国民に比較的近いです。 しかし、エルメスは異なっています。馬が馬を生産するのは初めてです。そのため、エルメスは主に手作りの芸術であり、一般的な意味では贅沢ではありません。 エルメスiphoneケースのすべての製品は、芸術作品として楽しんで保存することができます。 ルイ?ヴィトンは、価格面ではルイ?ヴィトンよりもはるかに高いですが、質の面ではそれほど優れているわけではありませんが、近年では生産の増加により衰退の兆しが見えてきました。 最も顕著なパフォーマンスは、ブランド携帯ケース伝統的に手作業で加工された部品の多くが現在機械加工されていることです。加工の質は向上しますが、機械と労働は必ずしも成績ではありません。