What is Digg?48 Comments
- jugger74, on 10/11/2007, -9/+21None of this means ***** because last year I personally watched CEOs from Google sit before a senate committee and have to admit that they did not know how many Chinese dissidents were jailed or killed because of info turned over by Google to the Chinese government. That was O.K. though because they were just following Chinese laws so they could continue to do business there.
- HLipschitz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8jugger74: It was Yahoo! that turned information over to the Chinese government, not Google...
- quux, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Okay, I'm mentally ready for the digg down...
"All hail the mighty Google. Death to the infidels and blasphemers who dare denounce ye! Long live fanboism!"
But seriously, if you ever think that a corporation has your best interest in mind you've lost your mind. Companies don't 'do no evil', they 'make next quarter's numbers'. Period. EOL.
Google may be the best or the worst with your information, but if selling it or giving it away means a better profit and company outlook, they will do it. - mastershane, on 10/11/2007, -7/+14So Privacy international are suing kids and dead people now? Or maybe you're a Google fanboy who is blowing things out of proportion.
- Silvery, on 10/11/2007, -13/+18This is a very good breakdown of Privacy International's standards used to assess Google's privacy practices, and a fair and balanced comparison with the other companies assessed. This makes some very valid arguments as to why Privacy International's report was likely off-base in declaring Google to be the worst.
- byronm, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8@dannysullivan
lets listen to anything from someone with a capital G in there pic and respond as if your views are "fair and balanced".. a shill is a shill - vvaduva, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8Google turned logs over to the Chinese commies, leading to the direct arrests and likely deaths of Chinese dissidents and students. Either Google sucks at understanding freedom and fundamental human rights, or the guy writing this crap doesn't care. Marked as "lame."
- bigtallmofo, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10Some day, anyone saying anything positive about Google will get dugg'd down to oblivion. For now, anyone that dares criticize them suffers that fate. Google can do no wrong in some people's eyes.
- PatrickA, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4http://digg.com/tech_news/Google_Developer_Responds_to_Privacy_Criticisms_by_Watchdog_Groups
Google employee Matt Cutts responds on this issue. Needless to say he is on Google's side. - dannysullivan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5@triad203, @draxenato, others, I'm well aware some will want to view the article as a fanboy work, which I addressed in the article itself. But it isn't, and if you really honestly care about privacy, then read on as I explain a bit more perspective.
I've been writing about search privacy issues since 1998, since before Google itself was even a target. As Google in particular has grown, I've watched Google get singled out and usually over issues on IP logging and cookie expiration. Focusing on those issues is laughable, since Google (as does Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL and others) has far more private information about people who log-in. But the privacy advocates tend to fixate on the low-hanging fruit and FUD (in my view) of IPs and cookies.
Sure, it's important to understand what happens with them. But I'm more concerned about what happens to that logged in data -- and if you do delete it, is it really deleted? I'm the only one to my knowledge that's actually gotten Google to confirm that even if you delete account data, there's still backup tapes out there with the information on it. That should go, as well -- right?
And this brings me to the PI report. I actually agree with some of PIs general concerns (which if you actually read my article, I'm clear about this). But I'm annoyed that they put out a report that purports to quantify things yet when you read it, it is a mishmash of subjective and incomplete comparisons. That does harm to PI's reputation as wel as the overall goal, to protect privacy for all of us.
Back in 2006, I diligently lobbied for a "Search Privacy Bill Of Rights"
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=9700
What I wanted was someone -- anyone -- to give us a checklist of what things companies should maintain, what they should delete, how procedures should work so we had across the board protection. This came out of having to watch the annual "let's target Google over privacy" thing that we're seeing again.
It's not that Google doesn't deserve criticism. It does. It is a big huge hulking company sucking up more and more of our data for the primary reason of making money. I have no doubt or illusions about that. Consumers tend to need protection against companies, big and small. But what I want is an actual concerted and industry-wide effort to improve things, not what feels like one organization's push to get some attention and do themselves harm with a poor report. We deserve better from both Google and PI. - AmazingPics, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6@mastershane
It would give you more credibility if you can elaborate on why you disagree, instead of just calling the authors "Google shills".
By the way, welcome to Digg, since this is your first day here, and this comment is your first one. - dannysullivan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Actually, that was Yahoo. In particular, I think you're talking about them handing over the email of one Chinese journalist. In China, Google's main fault cited usually is caving in to Chinese censorship demands, not handing over user data.
- Silvery, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Sullivan's article isn't a fan-boy diatribe against the Privacy International report, if you read it carefully - in it, he even criticizes Google's handling of the matter and Google's attack on Privacy International personnel.
But, what he does do is criticize Privacy International for three things: not creating a standard that contains more of some of the pieces of user-data that should be a major concern; for not giving an objective evalution on the measures they did track; and for calling Google the worst compared to companies which demonstrably did better.
Voting for Sullivan's article shouldn't be considered "FOR" or "AGAINST" votes for Google, but for whether the article was a good criticism of the Privacy International report.
Sullivan is a reporter, and he covered a variety of interesting points in the article. It'd be really great if this were to inspire some of the privacy organizations to really work on an ideal standard for how user data should be handled. If Privacy International were to issue a recommendation of how all the various data elements/processes should be handled, then grade companies (measurably!) on how they faired, it would be really worthwhile. - generalloy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3As more people using gmail, people are forced to send email that Google data mines (....for ads. Yeah, ok, more for the CIA. Total Information Awareness).
How do you know what Google knows about you? - dannysullivan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9Yes, blame the report -- if the report suggests to quantify things and then doesn't actually do that. Google might be as awful as PI suspects, but the report (if you actually read it, as I did), doesn't prove this conclusively in any way).
- jeremyduffy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I love google because it's simple, no frills, and works. However, when it comes to privacy, there's one thing I still haven't found the answer to. Though they resisted the government sweep for data an they promise to remove personally identifiable information from their logs after two years, why do they need it at all? They can still store annonymous aggregation of data and improve their services without ever tying it back to a specific individual.
Unless of course, they're using it for marketing... - plhearn, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Privacy International wrote a public letter to Google on its website.
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-553964
In the letter they attempt to refuse these claims but in doing so admit to having many ties to Microsoft. I don't trust them one bit - jeremyduffy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4And don't forget that they'll keep the data for at least 2 years. Plenty of time for that data to be used against you in various ways.
- jugger74, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@hlipschitz
I watched the whole committee hearing they had CEO s from Yahoo, Cisco and Google but Google was centered out as the worst for willingly giving over info to the Chinese government regarding dissidents.They were even found to be giving info the government didn't even ask for. - dannysullivan, on 10/11/2007, -7/+8@byronm: I was looking for a catchy icon here at DIgg, where you might be aware, there tend to be a lot of Google fans. I thought it was funny.
Google: Master Of Closing The Loop?
http://searchengineland.com/070406-074010.php
Go read that, come back, tell me if you think I'm a shill. It says things like:
"Is it far-fetched to think Google itself could be setting itself up for an anti-trust action? If the web is now the operating system, and Google is seen by many controlling the web, perhaps it will be forced to divest itself of certain operations because of them effectively giving it a trust or monopoly."
Why don't you listen to what I've actually written, if you want to make a fair and balanced judgment, rather than being knee-jerk? To get you started, here's an entire categories of stories we maintain on Search Engine Land where people are critical about Google:
http://searchengineland.com/lands/google-critics.php
If we just loved them, you know, we wouldn't maintain a list like that. - Grouser, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You want an example? There used to be a company called Dejanews (www.dejanews.com) that archived Usenet news. This led to problems where people objected to their extemporaneous remarks being captured and put in a search engine with no expiry date.
The problem was resolved by Dejanews blocking articles if the author wrote in to object. However the articles were still in the database. Google bought the entire database, and restored the blocked articles. As in many other cases, they are making money from other peoples' work and creativity, without the authors having any rights or rewards. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5"Google Bad On Privacy? Maybe It's Privacy International's Report That Sucks"
How about an objective article about the referenced report:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/11/google_privacy_international/print.html
It sounds like the submitter needs to stop drinking the Google Kool-Aid.
Google is great and all, but just because Google claims their guiding principle is "Don't Be Evil" doesn't mean you have to be blinded by the light. They are a publicly traded, and FOR PROFIT company, which means they are looking out for their shareholders, not you. That's what they should do. And we should not trust them just because they''re Google. Any company with BILLIONS of dollars in assets (~$36B) is going to be motivated by growing and maintaining that capital. That's what corporations do. It doesn't make them evil, but it sure means I don't trust them with any more of my information than I have must.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google#Privacy - draxenato, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7The parent article read like a fanboy's hissy fit. Either that or Mr Sullivan had maybe imbibed a liitle too much java/booze/poison-of-your-choice
Given the nature of Google's business, which is gathering information, aggregating it and then making it available, it's kind of inevitable they're gonna fall foul of privacy adovcates. Sorta goes with the territory, would a butcher be surprised if he was boycotted by the local vegans ?
Google apologists will point to their very public resistance to the Bush administrations demand for users search details, what PI stopped short of saying, or even implying, was what about all the demands for Google's data that we *don't* hear about ?
The bottom line is that while PI's report was written with privacy concerns in mind there was no axe to grind with Google per se. Google's FUD tactics were clearly baseless, vindictive and easily rebutted by PI's open letter. The parent article smacks of desperation and isn't doing anything to help Google's case as it is so *very* clearly biased. If the author, Danny Sullivan, wants to help Google's position he'd be better off just deleting it. - dannysullivan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1> The best I saw was along the lines of "informed opinion" which is probably one of the reasons they aren't shy about letting folks know who sits on their board and advises them. Something which you were a bit snippy about which kinda got my goat.
Snippy mildly, I thought. They made a big, big deal that Google was raising the fact they have someone from Microsoft on their board. Hey, that's a fair thing to be raised. And like I said, if he's there as a private person, why is he listed as being from Microsoft? But as I also said, I really doubt he was the reason the report was so negative.
> This annual "lets target Google over privacy thing" isn't an annual thing with PI and it seem like you were lobbing more than a few brickbats in their direction.
At least once a year, we go through this type of thing with Google. And PI deserves the brickbats in my view, for putting out a report that is billed as some comprehensive survey but really assembled from anecdotal information. I honestly wanted more hard details. - jugger74, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@dannysullivan
Educate yourself before speaking in a public forum pleeeease. - crapbox, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I'm a bit worried about the potential for abuse of my privacy from a mixture of: search requests, gmail, blogger + any other G service. Between all of those, I'm sure they can get a good idea about what I'm thinking about.
Just because they haven't given away anything yet (I hope), I'm sure they keep long enough records for a successful data grab in future. Google has to be lucky many times, the scumbags who want the data only need be lucky once.
Wonder if Google's data is spread out across the globe? Can dubbya get his hands on gmail data from Mr. X from France? - draxenato, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You said:
@triad203, @draxenato, others, I'm well aware some will want to view the article as a fanboy work, which I addressed in the article itself. But it isn't, and if you really honestly care about privacy, then read on as I explain a bit more perspective.
Alrighty then...
You said:
Sure, it's important to understand what happens with them. But I'm more concerned about what happens to that logged in data -- and if you do delete it, is it really deleted? I'm the only one to my knowledge that's actually gotten Google to confirm that even if you delete account data, there's still backup tapes out there with the information on it. That should go, as well -- right?
Google, and pretty much any company that holds or uses personal data is subject to a shedload of mostly nonsensical laws and restrictions, ask anyone who's had to enforce SOX compliance. Almost all of those restrictions and laws will require the company to backup *all* data for X number of years, I think it's 7 years in the EU. So yeah, it's a point, Google are stuck between a rock and a hard place, as they utilise users data they're required to back it up and ensure it's recoverable for however many years.
You said:
And this brings me to the PI report. I actually agree with some of PIs general concerns (which if you actually read my article, I'm clear about this). But I'm annoyed that they put out a report that purports to quantify things yet when you read it, it is a mishmash of subjective and incomplete comparisons. That does harm to PI's reputation as wel as the overall goal, to protect privacy for all of us.
Yeah I saw you agreeing with them on some points, but I must admit I didn't see anything from them where they purported to present empircal evidence. The best I saw was along the lines of "informed opinion" which is probably one of the reasons they aren't shy about letting folks know who sits on their board and advises them. Something which you were a bit snippy about which kinda got my goat. You've gotta realise that an awful lot of us have to draw fine but rigid borders between our professional and private lives. The PI people are (TTBOMK) speaking entirely from their own personal ethical viewpoints. There is a distinction.
You said:
What I wanted was someone -- anyone -- to give us a checklist of what things companies should maintain, what they should delete, how procedures should work so we had across the board protection. This came out of having to watch the annual "let's target Google over privacy" thing that we're seeing again.
I don't think that checklist is a realistic target. Internet companies operate across international borders, so which laws apply ? Unless we have some sort of Balkanisation of the internet, which I think could actually be a good thing in the short term, I don't think we'll ever see realistic regulation of internet services.
This annual "lets target Google over privacy thing" isn't an annual thing with PI and it seem like you were lobbing more than a few brickbats in their direction.
On your last point though, "we deserve better from both Google and PI", yeah I'm with you on that one.
I've been making a living out of the internet since 1994, and when Al Gore coined the phrase "information superhighway" I thought we're gonna need something like a Highway Code then. Airlines operate internationally to an agreed set of standards, the internet doesn't mainly because of the u.s. government which wants to maintain as much control and oversight as possible, so until then we have a kind of cyberspace bandit country where no one is sure exactly which laws apply. I really think that erecting national or regional firewalls, enforcing regulations within them and only *then* seeking internationally ratified standards is the way forward. - JahDee, on 10/11/2007, -8/+9Keep in mind Google's track record with the government.... CIA involvement, and CIA employees on staff at google R+D..... Their track record in China is also dismal.... Imagine what google can do with something like the Patriot Act and tons of money....
Scary stuff. - dannysullivan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1It's been a pleasure commenting and hopefully educating some folks here. Now that the story has been buried, I won't be actively monitoring comments and responding, since buries generally stem the comment flow.
- mousky, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Several posters have stated that Google is 'invading people's privacy'. How so? The collection of data, some of it anonymous, some of it not, is by no means an invasion of one's privacy. It's how that data used that may raise privacy issues. Does anyone have a string of examples - not one or two isolated incidents - of Google incorrectly using or selling their data?
- mastershane, on 10/11/2007, -9/+9Search Engine Land are obviously Google shills. Wake up people. It seems more and more that search companys need to kiss Google as* to succeed these days.
- Battlecry, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Oh well.
Seriously guys, if you don't like google, don't use it. A lot of you are linux and apple people, you should know how that thing works. - Grouser, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4The "Search Engine Land" article was a whitewash. Google is way too intrusive. If you use them for a search, they'll connect to port 80 on your machine and use their search bot to download as much as they can grab. A lot of blogs use Google's blogger.com, and the same cookie accesses all the different blogs. Everything you write is aggregated. Google analytics keeps all your http referrals. It all gets fed into the U.S. government total information awareness data mining activity.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Don't use the internet then. Simple.
- kevinfell, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6@jahdee
You're right. In fact, I think Google is a CIA concern that was actually founded by the U.S. Government to keep track of people and data all over the world. - Battlecry, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Wait. Am I being dugg down because I'm NOT the only person who likes google?
Shouldn't people who disagree with my statement give me a thumbs up? :) - DiggyBank, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6They're now accusing Google of "conducting smear campaign" against them:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-553960
Do let them know what you think about their report (and don't forget to tell them that Google didn't pay for what you wrote):
privacyint@privacy.org - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -10/+8Yea blame the report...typical ass lickin fan
- dannysullivan, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5Matt's post is here:
http://mattcutts.com/blog/privacy-international-loses-all-credibility/ - scabbers, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Here's the privacy policy of the people behind "searchenginedland"
http://thirddoormedia.com/privacy.shtml - iViper, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Also seen something similar on matt cutts' blog
great post - Battlecry, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Wow... Guess I'm the only person who actually likes google.
- dannysullivan, on 10/11/2007, -11/+6Which part of the story made you think that? This part:
"With today's announcement, part of me wants to ring the alarm bell and shout "Uninstall your toolbar! Delete your Google account!" Because let's face it. Google's getting big, huge, giant. It's no longer a joke that the once small, lovable company wants to conquer the world. The Google monster company really is gobbling it up, with no barriers seemingly left....
I remember when Google was a search engine, with a philosophy that said, "Google does search." Now it puts ads on TV, in radio, in print -- serves as a payment platform, provides web analytics, pitches software "packs" to us and more. Does it really need to have our web surfing histories as well? When's enough enough?"
Or was it this part:
"To save itself, I'd like to see Google appoint a privacy czar, someone charged with, as I've suggested above, assuming the worst about the company and diligently working to ensure users have as much protection as possible."
No, I'm not a Google fanboy. Google does indeed have big privacy issues, as the article explains. But that doesn't excuse a major privacy organization from publishing a report that seems to quantify this when it fails to actually do that. - yalphi, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5I'm very sorry to say this, but Google is invading people's privacy. If I do a search for my alias via Microsoft I get 16 matches, but with Google I get 1,410 matches. This makes Google a much better search engine, yet I feel like their finding me everywhere. I can't hide.
- kevinfell, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=11-054038L&y=2007&m=06&t=png&rand=6018&srv=img3
- DiggyBank, on 10/11/2007, -12/+6Google is quite open about whatever they do. If you don't like the terms and conditions, don't use Google products. Simple.
http://www.google.com/privacy.html
Privacy International has joined the ranks of RIAA for me. - dannysullivan, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3Yep -- hope it's clear enough for Privacy International. We actually spent quite a bit of time trying to write one that explains things in clear language.
- mastershane, on 10/11/2007, -18/+5Dugg down for using the term "Fair and Balanced" like Fox use it.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is