05:15 PM
Thomas Claburn
Thomas Claburn
Connect Directly

Google's Privacy Invasion: It's Your Fault

If we really wanted privacy, we would turn off JavaScript, block ads, and browse in privacy mode through an anonymous proxy. But we would rather have free services.

John Battelle, who runs advertising company Federated Media and has written about Google for years, suggests as much in a thoughtful blog post. "Might it be possible that Apple is using data as its weapon, dressed up in the PR friendly clothing of 'privacy protection' for users?" he asks.

Indeed, it's possible.

But Apple is too clever to be caught taking direct action to hinder its competition without plausible deniability. The company has recognized that justifying its actions by claiming security, privacy, or user experience benefits will make almost any change acceptable.

Apple's refusal to support Flash on iOS devices represents an example of this. Its claims about security and performance issues affecting Flash on mobile devices were fair enough. But by shunning Flash, Apple achieved a business benefit: It crippled a competing development platform.

Apple's Gatekeeper in its forthcoming OS X Mountain Lion offers another example. Apple's next Mac operating system will block the installation of apps from third-party developers without an Apple Developer ID by default. This is perfectly justifiable on the grounds of security (even if it undermines Apple's previous assertions that malware isn't a problem on the Mac). But it will also serve to reinforce Apple's control of the OS X software sales channel.

Apple's decision to block third-party cookies by default has extra cover: The RFCs that define how browsers should handle cookies indicate that third-party cookies should be blocked by default. The major browser makers have not followed this recommendation, choosing instead to rely on P3P, an automated mechanism for communicating privacy preferences that's generally seen as a compromise between privacy ideals and business needs.

If we accept Google's explanation that this was an accident at face value, and assume that Apple too is blameless and only wants the best for its users, what are we left with? Is the Wall Street Journal too hard on Google because its owner, Rupert Murdoch, thinks Google steals content, and perhaps goes easy on Apple to secure better access to exclusives? Are consumer advocacy groups focused on Google because Google bashing makes headlines, which help with fundraising?

No, let's put the blame where it belongs, on us, the users of the Internet. We rely on free services like Gmail while insisting on "privacy," a term that we probably can't even define to our collective satisfaction. We accept terms of service contracts and privacy policies that explain in excessive detail how we will not get privacy, how our information will be used, and then we object.

So instead of privacy, let's talk about control. You do have some of that, still. Make some choices about how your information will be used--because it will be used--instead of accepting default settings.

If you object to the way Google does business, use ad-blocking software. This is what the Electronic Frontier Foundation recommends, at least until Google implements Do Not Track in Chrome. Perhaps everyone will follow this advice, Google will collapse, and then we can all just go back to fee-for-service computing. How does a $0.25 per search and $99 for an Android 5.0 upgrade sound?

Here's to hoping that Google offers a paid membership option that disables all information collection and advertising across all its services. Then we will finally be able to see what the absence of privacy is worth.

As enterprises ramp up cloud adoption, service-level agreements play a major role in ensuring quality enterprise application performance. Follow our four-step process to ensure providers live up to their end of the deal. It's all in our Cloud SLA report. (Free registration required.)

2 of 2
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 4   >   >>
User Rank: Apprentice
9/8/2014 | 10:47:39 PM
Google invading our privacy
Burn these CEO's to the ground already people! Including the Gates. Time to shut this new world disorder down for good.
Tom LaSusa
Tom LaSusa,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/12/2012 | 3:32:39 PM
re: Google's Privacy Invasion: It's Your Fault

A friendly reminder that you are encouraged to be as vocal and opinionated as you want to be, so long as you do so in a respectful manner. Insulting/derogatory/offensive language will not be tolerated. Usage of such dialogue can result in your comment being edited or removed -- and potentially having your profile blocked.

Tom LaSusa
Community Manager
User Rank: Apprentice
7/12/2012 | 12:21:39 PM
re: Google's Privacy Invasion: It's Your Fault
Thomas Claburn is a douchebag. His "blame the victim" mentality is appalling and insulting. Giving away something for free does not allow ANYBODY, let alone a juggernaut like Google to invade OUR privacy. He also blames the victim for accepting TOS contracts (fine print), which are usually written in gobbledygook or in a way that most laymen would not understand. Using Tom Claburn's logic, that would actually be the consumers' fault for being retarded (basically what Claburn thinks of everybody) and not the company's fault for invading your privacy. To give an example of what Claburn is trying to say, if you were to use the telephone and it happened to be tapped, it would be YOUR fault for using it and not the telephone companies/government's fault. He also mentions in the article that there is not a clear consensus on what the definition of privacy is. How convenient! If the word privacy doesn't even mean anything, then how can you invade it? Funny, after a quick scan of the dictionary, privacy is defined as such: "being free from being observed". Now, that seems like a definition that we all can accept "to our collective satisfaction". Again and not surprisingly, Claburn uses an illogical argument to justify an invasion of privacy. Last, but not least, Claburn implies that Google's privacy invasion is necessary for the consumer to keep getting free Google. Sorry, but privacy does not cost money - it is a fundamental human right (unless you are a tyrant). Claburn uses the black and white argument that it's either no privacy and free Google, or privacy and no free Google. If that were true, it doesn't change the fact that Google is invading YOUR privacy to make a quick buck (and who knows what else they're up to) when they could still make billions of dollars doing things that don't require invading the consumers' privacy. Good to know that Claburn puts corporation above consumer.
User Rank: Apprentice
2/21/2012 | 5:39:18 PM
re: Google's Privacy Invasion: It's Your Fault
Funny.. I have Do not track Plus on my browser and this information Week page shows 20 tracking devices (cookies) .. the highest I have seen on any one page... glass houses and all...
User Rank: Apprentice
2/20/2012 | 10:10:34 PM
re: Google's Privacy Invasion: It's Your Fault
Who's fault is it that you have come to rely on Google for just about everything? It's your own fault. "Google baited with a free service". You mean "I took advantage of a free service and now I'm complaining they want to run it the way they want to run it". It's called advertising and it's been around for quite a while now.

How many wealthy senior citizens do you think depend on Google's free services? Go tell them they can't um-encumber themselves from Google's influence. Get ready to be laughed at and called a fool.

"Trying to get your old emails back that are archived on Google not so easy." Really? How about taking two seconds to actually figure it out. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=download+... Since you are too lazy to search on your own, I will help you out even more, click on the very first link.

Again, who's fault is it that you are ignorant or too lazy to figure out how to do something or use the tools that you use? It took me all of less than a minute to find out how to do what you consider "not so easy". Is it Google's fault or the fault of anybody else that you are ignorant or lazy? (I could have used any search engine to figure this out btw). You just prove my point even more. People are either too lazy or ignorant to figure out how to use the tools they use. It's not judgemental like DAGOSTA000 states, it's pointing out the facts, big difference.

Would you give your 16 old kid a new 100k Harley Davidson Motorcycle and tell him to go use it when they don't know anything about driving a motorcycle? With your logic, the kid should already know how to use/drive a motorcycle from the start, and if he doesn't it's Harley Davidson's fault if anything bad happens huh?

"There's a sucker born every minute". Which category do you fit in? Don't answer that, I think we all know.
User Rank: Apprentice
2/20/2012 | 5:42:07 AM
re: Google's Privacy Invasion: It's Your Fault
I hate being tracked by Google with their "above the rest" attitude. I thought they were 'special' when it came to using users personal information. In the end it's every man for him self. Which translates to every search engine will track you and keep cookies stored on your computer so they can market products that you seem to be interested in. Which is fine because I regularly delete them. I delete all the L.S.O.'s as well. I think those are worse. If not for some research I wouldn't even know about the L.S.O's. I've disabled my updates with Adobe so I won't have to worry about some new technology development that I'll have to keep up with in order to maintain my privacy. And I thought the Patriot Act was bad!
Eschewing Obfuscation
Eschewing Obfuscation,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/20/2012 | 4:30:47 AM
re: Google's Privacy Invasion: It's Your Fault
How about rather than hoping for Google to offer a paid membership option we hope for transparent disclosure and honesty? Privacy hawks aside, Google's shareholders have a right to accurate information regarding Google's solicitation, use of, and strategies for gaining personal information. You can go back and forth about Safari settings and Google opt-outs all day, but that's disingenuous. Yes, every aspect of 'free' web services hinges on user data. But when a publicly traded company purports to be above all of that and subscribe to the idea of 'don't be evil'', any failure to live up to that standard is an ethical failure to live up to stockholder expectations.

In terms of whether or not people care about privacy, and where blame rightfully belongs, the issue breaks in much the same way. If Google didn't make such a large issue of their trustworthiness and adherence to privacy standards, then yes, average internet users would be to blame for sacrificing their own privacy. BUT Google advertises itself as being above such shenanigans. This is not a 'blame the dumb users, they don't know what they're doing' issue. This is a clear issue of bait and switch. Google draws in users with promises of ethical behavior, responsible usage of data, and respecting privacy. If it is not prepared to live up to those promises, regardless of why, it should not make them; When it fails to live up to its own promises, its users should rightfully throw a fit and demand change.

Don't blame users for expecting companies to act as advertised. Blame companies for making false promises.
User Rank: Apprentice
2/20/2012 | 4:11:14 AM
re: Google's Privacy Invasion: It's Your Fault
Their are ways to access the web more privately. But most user I am sure do not take advantage of it. We choose to demand free sites and in the end the devil is marketing tracking cookies. Their are some sites I prefer have less ads such as Hotmail. I hate those right side bar ads. So now I pay a little every year to make them go away. Their are some free ways such as AdBlock and they work well. But for me the most annoying was pop ups and almost any browser blocks those if you want. Otherwise I really do not care so much about ads. Their are ads everywhere in life. So why should we think the internet would be any different?
User Rank: Apprentice
2/19/2012 | 10:39:32 PM
re: Google's Privacy Invasion: It's Your Fault
By my own choice, I have chosen to exchange personal data for Google services. That is, when they are dealing off the top of the deck. In this instance, their errant actions were purposeful and hopefully will be found to be criminal.

More concerning is that Google is taking the sole hit. Why no mention of the other three advertising entities? Often, that which goes unspoken tells most.

For example, WPP is a holding company which owns many of the world's largest advertising firms. Is InformationWeek holding them to account? Does InformationWeek receive advertising revenue from WPP or its subsidiaries? Both advertising and journalism need to adhere to ethical practices.

There's a lot of shame to go around here and InformationWeek itself remains in question.
Tom Mariner
Tom Mariner,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/19/2012 | 9:09:39 PM
re: Google's Privacy Invasion: It's Your Fault
More than my fault -- I encourage it! I like it when I browse for something and everything else I do for a while gives me suggestions on alternate products or where I can get it for less! Yeah, I know , heresy in a world of ultraprivacy. Wait, it gets worse -- in an age where a hospital can get fined $50,000 per name for even the hint of a leak, I would rather have a health professional find out everything that has happened to me so they can help me get better faster. There, I've said it!

If I get these benefits and the icing on the cake is that it lets me get all this great stuff on the Internet for free, get to the bad part. Granted, I am way beyond the age of posting revealing pictures or text of stupid acts on a social site, but am worried that our young are going to find themselves denied something later because of youthful indiscretion.

And here's a really bad part -- we elect our public officials based not on how good they would be at the job, but on who has done less stuff we can find out about. I'm not real happy about he "National Enquirer" method of getting a President -- or Town Supervisor, but Americans seem adverse to actually investigating, so maybe the Internet watching those folks is not good for all of us.
Page 1 / 4   >   >>
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
DNS Threats: What Every Enterprise Should Know
Domain Name System exploits could put your data at risk. Here's some advice on how to avoid them.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
Published: 2015-10-15
The Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) subsystem in the Linux kernel through 4.x mishandles requests for Graphics Execution Manager (GEM) objects, which allows context-dependent attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via an application that processes graphics data, as demonstrated b...

Published: 2015-10-15
netstat in IBM AIX 5.3, 6.1, and 7.1 and VIOS 2.2.x, when a fibre channel adapter is used, allows local users to gain privileges via unspecified vectors.

Published: 2015-10-15
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in eXtplorer before 2.1.8 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that execute PHP code.

Published: 2015-10-15
Directory traversal vulnerability in QNAP QTS before 4.1.4 build 0910 and 4.2.x before 4.2.0 RC2 build 0910, when AFP is enabled, allows remote attackers to read or write to arbitrary files by leveraging access to an OS X (1) user or (2) guest account.

Published: 2015-10-15
Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC) 1.1j allows local users to gain privileges via vectors involving addition of an SSH key, aka Bug ID CSCuw46076.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio

The cybersecurity profession struggles to retain women (figures range from 10 to 20 percent). It's particularly worrisome for an industry with a rapidly growing number of vacant positions.

So why does the shortage of women continue to be worse in security than in other IT sectors? How can men in infosec be better allies for women; and how can women be better allies for one another? What is the industry doing to fix the problem -- what's working, and what isn't?

Is this really a problem at all? Are the low numbers simply an indication that women do not want to be in cybersecurity, and is it possible that more women will never want to be in cybersecurity? How many women would we need to see in the industry to declare success?

Join Dark Reading senior editor Sara Peters and guests Angela Knox of Cloudmark, Barrett Sellers of Arbor Networks, Regina Wallace-Jones of Facebook, Steve Christey Coley of MITRE, and Chris Roosenraad of M3AAWG on Wednesday, July 13 at 1 p.m. Eastern Time to discuss all this and more.