Google's evil

[Crowbar]

Now that Google has bought DoubleClick, let's review a few scary facts. Consider the following quote:
Quote:

Google ad sense operates on a different level...using cookies is just part of the game. Via IP pingbacks, toolbar tracking, and account identification, users may unkowningly be giving out alot more data than they realize. Say for instance that you use Gmail. or any Google service that requires login. Google can track you via that login to each site you visit that has a google ad (70% of the net from what I understand). See, doubleclick never had this part of the equation...they never had account info. Google can tie your IPs, usernames, email content, and web browsing activity...and you can't do jack about it (short of blocking the google scripts themselves). Even without login account info, Google has the ability to track your individual machine via IP pingbacks. If you nav to page one, the google ad gets your exposed ip, then the next page you visit that has a google ad...yep..that ip is used to track that navigation. No cookie needed. Of course, if your behind a firewall, only the firewall ip would get exposed. But still...do you really want to give anyone that much information about you?

 

[Vkamicht]

Eh, don't see what the big deal is. If this is really happening, I'm betting they would just use it to form "more suitable ads" for people. I've been ignoring them for a long time, I can sure keep it up.

 

[ken36]

I'm not concerned about this either.

 

[blessingx]

Nice title. Nothing like confusing "is evil" with "could become evil."
The DoubleClick purchase just occurred.

On the related note, nothing wrong with playing it safe with your host file though. Google and elsewhere.

 

[Crowbar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nice title. Nothing like confusing "is evil" with "could become evil."

This story is just one example. Slashdot has had already numerous articles of other scary things Google is doing.

In the end, Google has no choice but to be evil, because it's profitable and by law they are bound to make profit for their shareholders, everything else being secondary.

As Google expands with more and more services (there's already word processing and spreadsheets, with presentations soon to be added, and we've had for a while Google Desktop, Google Earth, GMail, and numerous other services), eventually you'll have the majority of Web users trusting the majority of their information to a single company. Market research is the claimed use of gathered data, but the power here is quite enormous and to believe it won't be abused is naive. Google is already a portal for many people to the Web. There's inherent potential for significant abuse and influencing of opinion by simply manipulating search results.

 

[Jahn]

my anti-spam software constantly fights off doubleclick. guess this is one fight it's eventually going to lose.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowbar /img/forum/go_quote.gif This story is just one example. Slashdot has had already numerous articles of other scary things Google is doing. In the end, Google has no choice but to be evil, because it's profitable and by law they are bound to make profit for their shareholders, everything else being secondary. As Google expands with more and more services (there's already word processing and spreadsheets, with presentations soon to be added, and we've had for a while Google Desktop, Google Earth, GMail, and numerous other services), eventually you'll have the majority of Web users trusting the majority of their information to a single company. Market research is the claimed use of gathered data, but the power here is quite enormous and to believe it won't be abused is naive. Google is already a portal for many people to the Web. There's inherent potential for significant abuse and influencing of opinion by simply manipulating search results.

While you and I have similar concerns for corporate responsibility (and likely neither fans of DoubleClick), and in the end you may be correct (I recently had an argument with another on why Google is the 800 lb gorilla), from your tense use you prove my point. Google may be evil in the future.

And I have to point out (though I know it's going to sound like the insane argument in another thread - guns good, because bombs are worse), it's widely reported the DC purchase was a defensive move against Microsoft buying them. I know your complaints move beyond this, and we'll see where this goes, but if you ask me which company I'd prefer had "my secrets" based on their past actions, well....

Please site the Slashdot (or Digg) articles. I've read several privacy concerns, but not one yet where action was taken that showed misconduct. Look at the reporting that followed Gmail launch versus activity taken since then. Again we may be on the same side on this issue, but we're not on the same side on the wording.

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowbar /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the end, Google has no choice but to be evil, because it's profitable and by law they are bound to make profit for their shareholders, everything else being secondary.

That's not evil. That's how the world works. Grow up and get used to it.

--Chris

 

[marvin]

http://fe9.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/info...nfoworld/87549

Well, Google may not be evil, but some of it's employees probably are. I still wonder how you "inadvertently" steal and integrate some of your competitor's unreleased code into your software.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hempcamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's not evil. That's how the world works. Grow up and get used to it. --Chris

It can be how the world works and quite evil. A common 12th century Parisian past-time was burning cats alive, as but one example. Slavery anyone? Just look through history. Also investigate the redefining of "corporation" from usually single entity, public works status to its current incarnation.

If environmental or public interests come into conflict with shareholders interests, a corporation by law is required to side with the shareholders (with PR an obvious feedback system). Someone can pipe in and correct me if this is perception is wrong, but I would define this as both how the current world works and potentially quite evil. Crowbar and I are in full agreement here.

 

[Superpredator]

If you're concerned, run Tor through Firefox in combination with Privoxy and Vidalia. You may wind up searching through google.de more than google.com though, which is pretty annoying. Also, unless you run Tor consistently (slower), those cookies will still give your identity away. The two-browser method can work, but then you lose Firefox's fast/functional browsing capabilities. It's all pretty much a steaming pile.

http://tor.eff.org/

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif If environmental or public interests come into conflict with shareholders interests, a corporation by law is required to side with the shareholders (with PR an obvious feedback system).

By law, the corporate governing body defines what "shareholder interests" are, which in many cases turn out to be more in line with environmental and public interest than people assume. Many corporations today have very little corporate responsibility because they see the business world, like you, as a zero-sum Manichean system. In other words, they think "if our actions support public interest then we by nature can not be profitable" just as many in the public think that "if a company acts in the interest of the shareholder (i.e. profits) then they by nature are acting against public interest."

This is a bad assumption (but made with good intentions: so many companies out there have done bad things), but it is particularly unfair to companies like Google who so far have maintained very high standards of corporate responsibility AND managed to become incredibly profitable at the same time. Just because Google relies on increasing its ability to match consumers to marketers for profit doesn't mean what they will do with greater access to information is nefarious.

Besides, the services Google provides to the public are free (as in beer), with no obligation by the consumer to follow the links they create between potential buyer and marketer. I would say, therefore, that their profit-seeking interest DEPENDS upon the trust they have built between the public and themselves that they will not use their privileged access to your private information in a nefarious way. Otherwise, it is way too simple for the user to just walk away.

The issue, I think, is much more complicated than just assuming actions such as buying DoubleClick are evil.

--Chris

 

[blessingx]

Thanks for your thoughtful response hempcamp. I have to admit I grant Google extra benefit-of-the-doubt space that I specifically restrict with some other corps because of their past performance. Unfortunately, DoubleClick was one of those corps. We'll see, but so far Google has had a very good track record (IPO, free apps, largest corp solar power installation, etc.).

 

[Thelonious Monk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superpredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you're concerned, run Tor through Firefox in combination with Privoxy and Vidalia. You may wind up searching through google.de more than google.com though, which is pretty annoying. Also, unless you run Tor consistently (slower), those cookies will still give your identity away. The two-browser method can work, but then you lose Firefox's fast/functional browsing capabilities. It's all pretty much a steaming pile. http://tor.eff.org/

noscript works fairly well too.

 

[Zarathustra19]

I just block all google scripts. no biggie.