Google’s now a little pregnant on Do Not Track
August 18, 2010
In a big positive and under-reported Google privacy precedent, Google now has agreed to a new important privacy protection principle that people should be able to opt out of having their homes included in Google’s StreetView. Just yesterday in Germany, Google went live with a new StreetView op-out offering for Germans.
First, if it is a good consumer protection principle and option for German citizens, why shouldn’t it be a good policy and freedom for all citizens to enjoy in the 23 countries where Google has rolled out StreetView?
- The FTC, and every one of the 37 states investigating Google’s StreetView WiSpy scandal, should ask Google why this new Google precedent and freedom of privacy should not be extended and made available to all their consumers?
- The EU should ask why all EU citizens don’t deserve this new privacy right and freedom?
- Why should Google have a two-tier Internet privacy policy, which discriminates against non-Germans?
Second, as TechCrunch’s Alexia Tsotsis asked, if Google is establishing the privacy precedent that Google users should have the right and option to opt their homes out of Google’s StreetView tracking, why shouldn’t users themselves have the right and option to opt out of Google’s Total Information Awareness and pervasive tracking via search, Android, Chrome, ToolBar, Gmail, Google Analytics, AdSense, AdWords, etc.?
Shouldn’t the privacy of a person be even more important to protect than an inanimate object/place like a home?
Hopefully this new Google privacy precedent augurs well for Google eventually supporting the concept of Do Not Track legislation to allow Americans to opt out of being tracked online without their meaningful permission, which is potential legislation modeled after the wildly popular and successful Do Not Call registry that the FTC administers, and which was proposed by nine prominent consumer groups in 2007.
- The June Zogby-Precursor poll on online privacy confirmed Americans very strongly want to have the right and option to opt out of the pervasive secret online tracking of their activities, like Google does.
- “Nine in ten (88%) believe that tracking where Internet users go on the Internet without their permission is an unfair business practice, while 7% believe it is a fair practice.”
- “Eight in ten (79%) support a national “Do Not Track List,” similar to the current national “Do Not Call List,” to prevent tracking where people go on the Internet, and 6% do not.”
In this highly contentious political environment — protecting Americans’ online privacy with a Do Not Track list — is one of the single most popular bipartisan issues in Washington and around the country.
- People want the option to better protect their online privacy.
- Hopefully Google will listen to their users and follow Google’s #1 principle “Focus on the user and all else will follow.”
- If Google lives its stated values, it should allow all Google users, regardless of country, and regardless of product or service, to have the right and freedom to opt out of being tracked secretly by Google online.
37 States now investigating Google StreetView snooping
July 21, 2010
37 States are now involved in a “powerful multi-state investigation” of “Google’s Streetview snooping” per a press release from investigation leader, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who released a new follow-up letter to Google asking for more information and clarification of its representations to date.
The letter shows the investigation is very serious. Its prosecutorial exactness strongly suggests that investigators believe Google has not been forthright in its answers to date and that it could be covering up material information to the investigation.
- Several questions in the letter also indicate that the investigators are seriously concerned about the integrity and completeness of Google’s systems of internal controls and supervision to ensure the safety and privacy of consumers.
What appears to be the most problematic line of inquiry is whether or not Google tested this software before it was used in public to collect private information on consumers.
- If Google did test the code in question, then Google has misrepresented the facts and deceived investigators and the public about the scandal.
- If Google did not test it, Google will have to explain how code that could affect consumers’ security and privacy could get out without supervision or review, which would then open up the inquiry to what other types of Google software is capturing private information on the public without appropriate and responsible Google internal controls and supervision.
In sum, Google is in a real pickle.
- It appears as if Google will have to admit either to misrepresentation/deception/cover-up or accept full liability for gross negligence concerning consumers’ privacy/security.
The Perils of Google’s New War on Apple
June 16, 2010
Google has much to lose in its ill-advised PR and public policy war with Apple, its previous closest Silicon Valley ally.
Antitrust or Fiduciary liablility? Google’s recent market behavior puts Google and its CEO Eric Schmidt in a lose-lose situation.
- Remember this time last year the FTC began investigating Google and Apple for potentially collusive over-lapping board seats, despite Mr. Schmidt’s assertion at the time that Apple was not a “primary competitor” to Google.
- Mr. Schmidt resigned from the Apple board under FTC pressure in August 2009.
- Google and its CEO are now in a real pickle:
- Either Google’s very recent competitive entry into competition with Apple’s: iPhone (Droid), iPad (Google Tablet), AdMob, Apple TV (Google TV), and ITunes (Google Music) — is prima facie evidence that Mr. Schmidt was colluding with Apple to not compete before… OR Google CEO Eric Schmidt is under intense personal risk of having violated his personal fiduciary duty as an Apple Director to protect and advance the interests of Apple and its shareholders.
- It’s hard to believe that Google has been able to launch all these new direct competitive alternatives to Apple: Droid, Google Tablet, AdMob, Google TV, and Google Music, in just the last year, with no involvement of Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who should have recused himself because of his intimate knowledge of Apple’s business, strategy, innovation secrets, and product launch timetable.
- This makes the Apple patent infringement suit against HTC a very serious threat to Google CEO Eric Schmidt personally, given his longtime fiduciary duty to protect Apple and its shareholders from when he was a Apple Director.
- While the official legal target of the suit was Google supplier HTC, I believe the real goal is to gain legal discovery/depositions of Mr. Schmidt and all his product managers of
Droid, and possibly Google Tablet, AdMob, Google TV, and Google Music. - If legal discovery of Google’s emails and other records find that Mr. Schmidt passed on any knowledge of Apple’s plans or trade secrets, Google, and Mr. Schmidt personally, are at serious legal risk.
- Moreover, this is not hypothetical risk, given what has been learned of Google’s “Freewheeling culture” from Viacom’s depositions against Google-YouTube.
- If Google handled its launches of its phone, tablet, mobile, TV, and music businesses anything like they handled their entry into video via YouTube, this serious personal fiduciary liability Mr. Schmidt faces could turn out to be the most serious risk yet to Google’s long term leadership stability.
- While the official legal target of the suit was Google supplier HTC, I believe the real goal is to gain legal discovery/depositions of Mr. Schmidt and all his product managers of
Brand Liability: Apple’s longstanding innovation leadership as a closed proprietary system, undermines Google mantra and claim that openness is the key to innovation. Google’s attacks on Google for being closed, will only invite more attention to Google’s self-serving openness double standard, where it pushes openness where it facilitates Google entering new businesses with a competition-killing, cross-subsidized free offering, but where Google fiercely resists any openness regarding its opaque black box monopoly markets of search and search advertising — the place openness is most needed.
- Google’s attempts to brand Apple as anti-innovation defies common sense and widespread personal experience, and it only invites comparison to where Google is not at all open, despite its boasts to the contrary.
Privacy Liability: Google’s pervasive invasion of privacy is a huge franchise liability for Google. Google collects more private information about more people without permission than any entity in the world. (See Chart: “Google’s Total Information Awareness Power”)
- Per USAToday:
- “The debate was on vivid display again during the D8 tech conference this month, when Apple CEO Steve Jobs weighed in on the topic. “Privacy means people know what they are signing up for in plain English,” he said. “Some people want to share more data. Ask them. Ask them every time. Let them know precisely what you are going to do with their data.“
- As Google tries to misdirect the FTC antitrust investigations toward Apple and away from Google, Apple has the same ability to boomerang FTC concerns about privacy back at Google.
In sum, Google remains its own worst enemy. It serially tattles to regulators and antitrust authorities about the slightest thing others do to Google, all while Google routinely operates well beyond the accepted boundaries of antitrust, copyright, privacy, and security.
Those in glass houses should not be pathological stone-throwers.
Americans want online privacy — per new Zogby poll
June 8, 2010
American consumers clearly want online privacy, per a national poll conducted over the weekend by Zogby International, that was commissioned by Precursor LLC.
- In a nutshell, over 80% of Americans are concerned about the security and privacy of their personal information on the Internet; about 90% of Americans consider some common industry behaviors to be unfair business practices; and about 80% of Americans support a variety of stronger consumer protections of their privacy online.
More specifically, this Zogby poll asked eight timely questions that are highly pertinent to:
- The FTC’s privacy review of online advertising, cloud computing, and other matters implicating privacy;
- Congressional efforts to update and harmonize privacy law for the Internet era;
- Several current privacy-related coalitions/efforts;
- The DOJ/FTC practice to exclude privacy problems from antitrust enforcement; and
- The Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee hearing Wednesday June 9th on “Oversight of Enforcement of Antitrust Laws.”
Zogby International polled a representative sample of 2,111 American adults from 6-4-10 through 6-7-10; the margin of error is +/-2.2%. Zogby’s summary of the survey results can be viewed here.
The Zogby poll, which is easily replicable, proves that despite repeated declarations by many opponents of online privacy that “privacy is dead,” Americans still clearly want and expect online privacy.
- The poll also strongly suggests that both Washington and many industry privacy practices are clearly out of step with what the American people want and expect.
Americans’ general views on Internet security/privacy:
- “About nine in ten (87%) adults surveyed nationwide are concerned with the security of their personal information on the Internet, while 13% are not.”
- “Eight in ten (80%) are concerned with companies recording their online habits and using the data to generate profit through advertising, and a fifth (19%) are not.”
Americans’ assessment of whether some current common online practices are fair or unfair business practices:
- “Nine in ten (88%) believe that tracking where Internet users go on the Internet without their permission is an unfair business practice, while 7% believe it is a fair practice.”
- “Relaxing a privacy policy after a company has collected personal information and associations is an unfair business practice according to nine in ten (91%), while 1% believe it is a fair practice.”
Americans’ views on a variety of stronger consumer protections of their privacy online:
Concerning potential FTC privacy regulations:
- “Half (49%) believe government regulators should play a larger role in protecting online consumer privacy, and more than a third (36%) do not.”
Concerning pending Congressional online privacy legislation:
- “The large majority (88%) believe consumers should enjoy similar legal privacy protections online as they have offline, while 4% do not.”
Concerning the privacy proposal of nine consumer groups for a “Do Not Track List” akin to the current “Do Not Call List:”
- “Eight in ten (79%) support a national “Do Not Track List,” similar to the current national “Do Not Call List,” to prevent tracking where people go on the Internet, and 6% do not.”
Concerning the pending Digital Due Process Coalition, which supports updating surveillance laws for the Internet Age:
- “The large majority (79%) believe law enforcement should have to get a warrant, like the one they have to get to wiretap phone conversations, to track where a user goes on the Internet, while 12% do not.”
A Logical Extension:
First, this national Zogby poll is a logical extension of previous research on the subject:
This Zogby International poll confirms and builds upon the findings of two previous national polls concerning consumers’ online privacy views.
- This Zogby poll strongly validates the findings of a September 2008 Consumer Reports Survey: “Consumer Reports Poll: Americans Extremely Concerned About Internet Privacy: Most Consumers Want More Control Over How Their Online Information Is Collected & Used.“
- That survey found: “The poll revealed that 93 percent of Americans think internet companies should always ask for permission before using personal information and 72 percent want the right to opt out when companies track their online behavior.”
- This Zogby survey also confirms and builds upon the independent study led by Professor Joseph Turow of the Annenberg School at the University of Pennsylvania entitled: “Americans Reject Tailored Advertising.” That study/poll found:
- 86% of young adults say they don’t want tailored advertising if it is the result of following their behavior on websites other than one they are visiting, and 90% of them reject it if it is the result of following what they do offline.
- 69% of American adults feel there should be a law that gives people the right to know everything that a website knows about them.
- 92% agree there should be a law that requires “websites and advertising companies to delete all stored information about an individual, if requested to do so.”
Second, this Zogby poll is a logical extension of my 22 part “Publicacy vs. Privacy” research series over the last year and a half.
- I coined the term “publicacy” (because there was no antonym/opposite for the word privacy in the english language, and because the word “publicity” does not connote political opposition to privacy), two years ago in Congressional testimony, in order to identify and name the Web 2.0 movement’s new belief system that individuals’ private information should be public because public transparency collectively is better for society than individual privacy.
Third, this poll is also a logical extension of my House Internet Subcommittee testimony last year, in which I proposed a “consumer-driven, technology/competition neutral privacy framework” for potential Federal privacy protection legislation.
In sum, this Zogby poll is interesting and important because it exposes how unpopular many common Internet online privacy-related practices are with American consumers and how popular many proposed privacy-related protections would be with the American public.
- Better protecting Americans’ privacy online is a rare public policy issue, which garners exceptionally strong bipartisan support with the American people.
Google’s goobristic permission policy: We never need your permission, but you always need ours
June 7, 2010
Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt, dismissed the notion that Google was “arrogant” in an FT interview.
- Mr. Schmidt: “The arrogance comes across because we trying to do things for end-users against organised opposition from stakeholders that are unhappy — and they paint us as arrogant. But I am sure that all successful organisations have some arrogance in them.”
It seems to me that “the arrogance comes across” with Google because Google operates, and expects to operate, under a double standard — where rules, laws and expectations apply to others, but do not, and should not, apply to Google — because Google is somehow special.
The latest example of Google’s expectation to be treated differently and better than Google treats everyone else — is Google’s “permissions” policy. (See the Goobris Series below for other examples.)
- Google’s official “Google permissions” policy, where it requires everyone to ask Google permission to use Google’s property, while it routinely seizes the world’s private and proprietary information without expecting to ask anyone for their permission, is Google’s latest act of “Goobris.”
Only Googlers would not see the irony or hypocrisy in requiring others to seek Google’s permission when Google maintains it needs no one’s permission to do its business.
This special treatment/double standard appears to be a well worn pattern for Google. Consider:
- No one can use Google property without permission, but Google can copy 12 million books without permission or payment.
- No one can infringe on Google’s trademarks or copyrights, but Google-YouTube can copy/infringe the copyrights of tens of thousands of TV shows and movies without permission or payment.
- Competitive broadband providers must be neutral and not discriminate, but Google’s search advertising monopoly does not have to act neutrally and can discriminate against competitors.
- The FCC’s Open Internet regulations should apply only to broadband information services but not to Google’s information services.
- Consumers should have to pay more for more bandwidth use, but Google should not. (See paras 106 & 103/104/112 of the FCC’s proposed rules.)
- The FTC should not investigate Google for antitrust despite the FTC determining Google has market dominance, but the FTC should investigate Apple for antitrust when Apple has not been found by the FTC to be dominant.
In sum, Goobris is Google expecting that all the rules, laws and standards that apply to others — do not, and should not, apply to Google — because Google is special.
Goobris defined: See Goolossary at www.GoogleMonitor.com
Goobris I: “Goobris”
Goobris II: “Goobris Alert: ‘We want to be Santa Claus’”
Goobris III: “Clueless Goobris”
Goobris IV: “Schmidt Goobris: ‘we should have 100% share.’”
Goobris V: “Real Discrimination Goobris — Google’s hiding its EEO track record”