As Google's services and influence have expanded its security and privacy policies have experienced increased scrutiny. Some of this attention may be attributed to negative shifts in public perceptions of the company (Rivlin, 2005), but the amount of coverage dedicated specifically to the security and privacy issues of Google's services seems to indicate a sincere concern about its policies. Concerns of this nature have prompted the appearance of numerous articles, forum discussions, and the emergence of watch groups.
Contents
|
The privacy issues surrounding Google stem from a variety of sources all related to various aspects of its services. Many of these concerns involve technological uses somewhat unique to Google, such as its Adsense program, automated updating of files, and its use of cookies which do not expire for thirty-five years. Given the range of Google's offerings, it is easy to see that what might be a major concern in one service may be negligible in another.
Many also point to the fact that as the range of Google’s services continues to grow it is able to gather ever increasing amounts of information about its users. While numerous privacy activists are concerned about Google's potential use of this information, even more are focused on the potential for outside exploitation. As Google gathers reservoirs of information about users, it becomes increasingly attractive to outside sources seeking personal information. The possible uses for Google's data range anywhere from government investigations to identity theft (AP, 2005).
Any debate concerning Google Search policies also apply to Google's image search, Froogle, and Google Catalogues search functions due to the fact that they all operate in a similar manner. The majority of concern around these applications originates in their usage of the Google cookie which identifies users and helps Google maintain information about their usage and preferences within the Google network. What is unique about the Google cookie is that it is not set to expire for thirty five years (Penenberg, 2005).
While the lifetime of the cookies may sound suspicious to some, Google and its supporters point to the fact that these cookies only monitor your actions within the Google network and that these cookies can be deleted from users' computers at any time. Another issue worth consideration is the actual useful life of the cookie technology. Given the current rate of change within the industry it would seem feasible that the use of cookies by providers may dwindle well before they reach their expiration date.
Key points of the Google Search Privacy Policy:
Some sources, including contributors to the site Google Watch, have voiced a significant number of concerns over the Google Toolbar application. While some of these issues was alleviated with the update of the toolbar (version 1.2), debate still remains. The primary issue concerning the Google Toolbar is its ability to track all of your activities on the net even if you're not using the Google Toolbar to access pages. The updated version enables users to turn this function on and off at will. Google has stated that they use information gathered from this tracking solely to help them with their Page Rank system.
They have also voiced concern over Google's ability to automatically update your toolbar once it has been installed on your computer without your authorization. It seems unlikely that Google itself would install any malicious software, but those wary of this feature have voiced their suspicions concerning this matter.
Key Points of the Google Toolbar Privacy Policy:
Many privacy advocates have expressed concern over how Gmail will affect the way emails are stored. Users have been filing complaints against Gmail in California and 16 other countries (Waldermeir, 2004). Gmail's privacy policy states that users' emails will never be completely deleted, and that cached copies may continue to remain on their systems (Ng, 2004). Some also worry that Google's AdSense software may actually read emails coming into Gmail, which Google denies, saying that emails are merely scanned by software (Swartz, 2004). Some also suggest that Gmail may enable Google to obtain the identity of individual users with the help of cookies.
Key Points of the Gmail Privacy Policy:
At this point, most of the privacy debate has focused around the use of other Google services. The Dominant threats concerning Blogger revolve around the use of the Google cookie and the potential linking of individuals to their blogs. Some cases of blog tracking have already arisen in places like the U.S. where recent legal changes have enabled the use of internet traces and have made the evidence found in such tracing permissible in any court (Poulse, 2005).
Key Points of the Blogger Privacy Policy:
The Google Groups privacy issues are unique due to the fact that most of the concerns revolve around previous contributions to the Usenet archives. Google acquired a significant portion or the Usenet archives in 2001 with their purchase of the struggling Deja News Research Service (Naraine, 2001). Google reintroduced the archives under the name Google Groups. Original contributors to these archives have had a number of concerns about Google Groups.
Some contributors wanted to have their original posts taken down, a matter on which Google has addressed by allowing users to remove their own messages. Another issue revolves around the fact that Google automatically masks and distorts email addresses linked to posts. While some feel that the feature helps protect them, others point out that they wouldn't post with an email address that they wouldn't mind being publicly available (Weinstein, 2004). The system now requires one to register and login to the Google Groups website in order to contact other users through their masked email addresses. That in itself would probably not be of so much concern if it weren't for the fact that it requires the use of the Google cookie.
Key Points of the Google Groups Privacy Policy:
Google Earth's privacy issues are unique within the Google network. This is due to the fact that it is not so much individual users who have the most at stake. On a personal level the primary concern would be Google's ability to access what parts of the world you've been looking at through the tracking of your Google cookie.
In this case, it is larger organizations, primarily governments, who are the most susceptible. Since the primary focus of Google Earth it's mapping of the earth's surface from various satellite images, its attempts have to potential to threaten the security of sensitive areas by revealing aspects of their layout.
A prime example of this concern has arisen within Australian borders at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor. Ultimately officials decided that the Google Earth photos posed no real threats to the facility due to the fact that the photos were somewhat dated and were of relatively poor resolution (Skatssoon, 2005). There are other areas, especially within the United States, that have already been made unavailable to Google Earth Users. As the service improves and possibly begins to incorporate timelier image updates of a higher resolution this issue may become of greater concern.
On the other side of this issue, however, is the fact that Google is now marketing advanced features of the Google Earth interface to various government offices. Links promoting its use in homeland security and defence/intelligence are easily accessible and openly promoted alongside possible applications in real estate and insurance.
The ultimate decision maker in terms of privacy policies at Google is Sergey Brin, one of Google's founders. Google has a list of statements that helps define its corporate values, but foremost among them is the phrase, "Don't be evil"(McHugh, 2003) It is part of Brin's job to determine exactly what is evil in the eyes of Google.
It is naturally to assume that in the eyes of Google, their privacy policies should coincide with this all encompassing motto against evil, but there are other issues which must be considered. Another dominant theme in Google's philosophy is the idea of their services being useful (McHugh,2003). When you consider Google's rationale behind its usage of debated technologies such as cookies, AdSense, and the page rank system, it becomes clear that a service's usefulness and the user privacy can sometimes be at odds.
Outside sources and Google itself have frequently pointed to the fact that they are not primarily interested in the usage of individual users (Lee, 2002). Google tends to be more interested in the aggregate of the data collected on its users rather than the individuals. By identifying trends it hopes to make its offerings more useful and profitable.
Many of Google's policy statements have been stripped of legal terminology and fine print in an attempt to make them more accessible to average users. While this seems to please some, others find the statements to be relatively vague concerning how Google actually handles user data. Perhaps the most reassuring statement the Google philosophy provides about user privacy is that it, "Will provide notice before any personally identifying information is transferred and becomes subject to a different privacy policy"(Penenberg, 2005). What Google fails to tell users is on what grounds they will transfer or release personally identifying information. It seems Google's lack of clarity on such issues may be the reason behind all the debate over its privacy issues.
Associated Press (2005, Jul. 17) "Google Growth Yields Privacy Fear," Wired News, retrieved August 13, 2005, from http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,68235,00.html accessed 13/8/2005
Lee, J. (2002, Nov. 28) "Postcards From Planet Google," The New York Times, retrieved August 15, 2005, from http://tech2.nytimes.com/mem/technology/techreview.html?res=9D07E1DF1538F93BA15752C1A9649C8B63
McHugh, J. (2003) "Google vs. Evil," Wired Magazine, Issue 11.01, January 2003, retrieved August 13, 2005, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.01/google_pr.html
Naraine, R. (2001, Apr. 30) "Deja Usenet Archives Restored on Google" Internet News.com, retrieved on August 23, 2005, from http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/8471_755181
Ng, Q. (2004) "No Free Lunches?," Asia Computer Weekly, 10 May, 2004. pg. 1
Penenberg, A. (2005, Jun. 23) "Beware the Google Threat," Wired News, retrieved August 15, 2005, from http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,67982,00.html
Poulse, K. (2005, Jul. 8) "Cops Watched Sex Offender's Blog," Wired News, retrieved August 15, 2005, from http://wwww.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,68136,00.html
Rivlin, G. (2005, Aug. 24) "Relax, Bill Gates; It's Google's Turn as the Villain," The New York Times, retrieved August 29, 2005, from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/technology/24valley.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1125311120-sps3+Rfohp1Qo553ZAE3HA
Skatssoon, J. (2005, Aug. 8) "Lucas Heights image stays on Google," ABC Science Online, retrieved August 15, 2005, from http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1432823.htm
Swartz, N. (2004) "Google's New E-mail Service Sparks Privacy Concerns?," Information Management Journal, Vol. 38, Iss. 4; pg. 6
Waldmeir, P. (2004) "Google's e-mail snooping is a test case for privacy?," Financial Times, 24 May, 2004. pg. 10
Weinstein, L. (2004, Dec. 12) "New 'Google Groups' Netnews Service Mangles Messages + Related Copyright and Privacy Issues" retrieved on August 23, 2005, from http://neon.vortex.com/google-groups
Contributors to this page include:
Sherwin Huang 11:42, 27 Oct 2004 (EST)
Michael chappelow 10:19, 30 Aug 2005 (EST)
