Google getting nudged on Privacy,..again.

[Mike]

The top Republican on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Joe Barton, again asked Google about its privacy practices.

Just as the Representative from Texas did last year, Barton again posed questions to Google regarding the protection of consumer information. The approval of Google's purchase of ad network DoubleClick magnified the concerns about Google having control of an overwhelming amount of details about people and the ways they use the Internet.

(An aside to Rep. Barton: your House website's latest news is dated December 18, 2007. You might want to get a summer intern to update that at least to 2008.)

Barton's latest request to Google and its CEO, Eric Schmidt, said, "It is critical that Google's and DoubleClick's policies and procedures for handling this information be transparent, and that every effort is made to protect consumers' data." Reuters noted Barton's latest concerns.

He also asked if people would be allowed to opt-out of data collection by Google and DoubleClick, and how Google planned to merge DoubleClick's data with existing consumer information already held in Google's servers.

Google's Adam Kovacevich told Reuters: "We have had a constructive ongoing dialogue with Rep. Barton's staff about our privacy practices, and while the integration of DoubleClick into Google is still underway, we will of course respond to his questions."

During the acquisition process, Scott Cleland testified in September about the astonishing reach Google stood to gain in consumer information with the DoubleClick acquisition.

"If a business wants its content to succeed on the Internet, it would have no choice but to use the Google-DoubleClick-YouTube online advertising platform," said Cleland in September 2007. "No real competitive choice."
*******************
Source: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/05/22/barton-nudges-google-again-on-privacy
*******************

So i wonder, what really IS or WILL BE done against Google holding an unreasonable amount of data about each individual in their hands?
Not enough that they log EVERY search EVER conducted, they obviously will have access to billions of records from DblClick...

When will Google offer an "Opt Out" button for individuals to have their data deleted from Google's servers?! Or are we all just minions under Google's regency, without an option or opinion?
If you ask me, and i'm sure an overwhelming majority of all internet users would agree with this, I'd rather have my personal data wiped off Google's servers - after all, it's my life, my data, my behavioral usage, none of it should be owned by Google directly or be able to be purchased through take overs.

M.

 

[liquidcherry]

It is getting really annoying.....i am considering myself to reg the domains" nomoreg.com and goosucks.com.....what will be next to invade our privacy??

Cheers,

frank

 

[Jake]

With the google maps, I can see 2 of my neighbors...

Ridiculous I think...

 

[tinner666]

""If a business wants its content to succeed on the Internet, it would have no choice but to use the Google-DoubleClick-YouTube online advertising platform," said Cleland in September 2007. "No real competitive choice."" quote


If idiots wouldn't click on ads and had the sense to recognize paid from organic listings, it wouldn't be an issue. I guess it's the same idiots that watch TV commercials and listen to them on the radio.

 

[labrocca]

When will Google offer an "Opt Out" button for individuals to have their data deleted from Google's servers?!

You can always just stop using their service. That's Opt-Out imho. There is no requirement from Google to delete the information of it's users habits. If every business was forced to delete their customer histories, invoices, and reciepts we would end business as we know it.

Why is it reasonable to expect Google to delete information based on how it's members use their service?

 

[Mike]

Why is it reasonable to expect Google to delete information based on how it's members use their service?

If i use their service - no problem, i consent to them archiving my "moves" when i use their servers. However! when they start indexing records from medical to driving to legal to ... heck, you name it and they surely have their fingers on our details - up to and included: Social security numbers, Credit Card numbers, cell phone records, etc.
All a person has to know is HOW to query Google and information is revealed as clear as day, opening the doors for identity theft, misconceptions, unwarranted intrusions, etc.
Hell, if the federal government wants any of the above data, they have to produce a warrant and plausible cause, yet Google just indexes away and we're standing by. THAT'S what i have a problem with, not their Search Engine services. To me, it's a privacy issue and Google simply gives a flying .... about ours.
Any business, other than the ones in the business of selling data, are protecting their customers data at all costs as it represents the core of their business. Hence the public outcry when companies loose machinery containing data that discloses peoples personal data. Yet, at the same time, it's readily available at Google - provided that one knows where to look.

Summary:
Search engine data/statistics?: Sure, collect away!
Indexing Personal Data?: Keep your hands off!

M.

 

[labrocca]

However! when they start indexing records from medical to driving to legal to

It's illegal to release medical records without consent.

It's illegal to use driving records without consent too.

http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/DPPA1.htm

There are a lot of existing laws that Google doesn't break.

 

[Mike]

It's illegal to release medical records without consent.

It's illegal to use driving records without consent too.

http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/DPPA1.htm

There are a lot of existing laws that Google doesn't break.

In both instances i agree with you.
Regarding medical: Welcome to the world of HIPAA - yet they (GOOG) still indexed an entire hospital just a few months back. What many medical professionals feared is slowly starting to come true - the flipside of the EMR.
Of course, Google doesn't break all laws - under normal circumstances it's enough to break one, though.

M.

 

[Dave_Z]

Hell, if the federal government wants any of the above data, they have to produce a warrant and plausible cause

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/14/technology/google_data.reut/index.htm

The Justice Department said yesterday that it subpoenaed four major Internet companies for data on what people search for on the Web as part of an eight-year battle over a federal law designed to shield children from online pornography.

Three of the companies responded to some degree, but Google Inc. said it was resisting the demand.

http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/CPC/NYT_20google.html

The Justice Department has asked a federal judge to compel Google, the Internet search giant, to turn over records on millions of its users' search queries as part of the government's effort to uphold an online pornography law.

Google has been refusing the request since a subpoena was first issued last August, even as three of its competitors agreed to provide information, according to court documents made public this week.

Does anyone remember if they compromised or something?

 

[Mark]

I could go either way still - I'm a pretty dedicated Google user for the most part. There is always a chance Data will be accessed by the wrong people through Google - But the same can be said about your Local Doctors office as well. One of the Banks I used to deal with was hacked several years ago and thousands of it's customers Personal data was exposed. Nothing new about that concern ...

As far as people worried about Google maps etc ... , I actually think it's a pretty cool tool and can't think of any reason for "citizens" not to have access to the maps. Governments have had access forever - Not to mention most Tax offices (U.S.) have aerial maps available to the public already. They've just gone mainstream with them and made it easier to access for the general public.