Google As Benevolent Dictator: The Gatekeeper And The Data Collector
from the are-you-scared-yet? dept
Two separate stories in the NY Times provide fodder for those who view Google as the new scary borg. The first, looks at Google's sometimes slippery slope role as a "gatekeeper" of information within certain countries. For example, it looks at Google's agreement to help block access to certain YouTube videos in Thailand and similar decisions in other countries. The article plays up Google's reluctance to be involved in making these sorts of decisions (and highlights how the company hopes that more countries learn to accept free speech a bit more), but it still leaves you with this questionable feeling of Google as quasi-government censor. No matter how well-meaning the people may be who are making the decisions, it still feels questionable.The second article isn't just about Google, but talks about how, with various online services, many people are effectively giving up their privacy. This is hardly a new topic, and it's one that's been discussed repeatedly -- often with a nod to the famous Scott McNealy quote from almost a decade ago: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." The article touches on a lot more than just Google, but does mention the fact that Google seems to have access to all sorts of data that, when clumped together, could be seen as a violation of privacy for some.
Between the two stories, you can see why there's a growing sense of worry among some about how Google could become dangerous. It has access to all sorts of data about you -- and has the power to make decisions about what you can access, often with no explanation or recourse. Put that together, and you get this picture of Google as the benevolent dictator of the internet -- where it may be using its powers (mostly) for good, but there's plenty of potential that eventually it could turn evil. And, to some extent, it's worth highlighting these issues, so that people don't become complacent about Google's actions. But, there's an undercurrent to these stories that seem to miss out on a few things: if Google really does start abusing either of these "powers," unlike with a dictator, people have pretty easy choices to go elsewhere. Furthermore, as more concerns are raised about any potential abuse, people are rapidly working on technologies that solve both issues -- allowing people to surf the internet much more anonymously, while also routing around censorship. So, while it's not problematic to highlight these potential issues with Google, that doesn't mean that there aren't necessary checks and balances in place.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, data collector, gatekeeper, privacy
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As long as there are people involved with systems, sooner or later some employee will dig into records to look at things they shouldn't. If Verizon employees can look into Obama's calling patterns (credit Verizon for disclosing that) does anyone really think that they could be safe from such action?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's still pretty tough to get anonymity when you're dealing with money or physical delivery of goods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What? You haven't gotten your Google tattoo yet? You know it's required before you can condict buisness in the Google Marketplace don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or any website that uses Google Analytics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
privacy
When I start typing in the Google search bar, it usually comes up with auto completetions that are crazy awesome. Why the time I type in "Wor", it has already recommended "world of warcraft". When I type "Add" it already says "addons" if i type "addons x" it already says "addons x-perl".
it knows i'm looking for world of warcraft addons and it sometimes even lists a few addons I haven't seen before, but other people have searched for. I'll look into those addons because Goggle is "recommending" them in that other people find these searches useful
I find this VERY useful. this also means they know a lot about me. It's a trade off, privacy vs convenience. You CAN'T have both
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And some say the same thing about security and safety.
Do consumers really know what they are trading away?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]