Googles Information Gathering Activities - Article Example

? If you want to understand how little privacy one has online, do this little experiment. Conduct a Google search for “shoes”. Visit several sites selling, advertising or repairing shoes. Search “shoe fashion” and “shoe stores” and “athletic shoes”. Then log onto your Gmail account and e-mail a friend about borrowing shoes and shoe shopping and your favorite shoe store. Then check out the adds to your right. You will have ads for shoe stores, shoe magazines and shoe shopping sprees. This sort of targeted advertising is the basis for Google’s economic success. Advertisers are willing to pay lots of money for the guarantee that their advertisements will magically appear on the screens of the people that are most likely to buy their products, or at the very least, people that meet a certain profile of consumer that the sellers want to attract to their products. All of this sounds fine until questions about how Google collects and uses data are raised. How did the employees of Google know that I was shopping for shoes? The trade-off for the handiness of Google search lies in the fact that every time you search, you reveal a little bit about yourself. Likes, dislikes and hobbies are all recorded. The amount of e-mail you receive, generate and key words within all of those e-mails is also gathered and stored. The concern many are beginning to have about the way Google gathers, stores and shares information centers on the opportunities and threats this activity hold for our society as a whole, not to mention the damage it can cause to individuals. One positive aspect of Google’s information gathering activities is their apparent commitment to be transparent about their activities. Google has recently published a manual that educates and guides users understanding how information is gathered about them and how it is used. This guide is written in simple language and is intended for non-technical users (Blue, 2011). The guide titled, “Good to Know” is written for a global audience but is specifically targeted to address changes in legislation in the United Kingdom concerning how user information can be gathered, shared and used. The guide is broken into four sections, Stay Safe Online, Your Data on the Web, Your Data on Google and Manage Your Data. Step by step instructions are offered for interested persons on how to find out what type of a person Google thinks you are and how to opt out of the automated generation of Google Ads. It has been noted that this move puts Google far ahead of other tech companies when it comes to revealing how they gather and use consumer data. Apple and Facebook, most conspicuously, do not have any obvious safeguards in place for consumers (Thinesen, 2011). Neither company has a Chief Privacy Officer and Google does. Everyone gathering and using data has been stung with security concerns, but Apple and Facebook have had some of the most visible blunders. Compounding the mistrust of these companies has been the initial denials followed by admissions that data was gathered and applied in some seemingly covert manner. For Apple, the most revealing was the denial then admission that GPS software could track the movements of all iPhone users and for Facebook the denial then admission of tracking user movements through the used of the “Like” button even if not logged on to Facebook. Google’s willingness to have transparent methods of gathering and using information from users is good for society. It can help consumers feel that they are still in control of their own person and habits. It is good that they give users the ability to opt out of some forms of data transmission and gathering. Transparency makes all the difference because consumers are making informed choices about how they search using Google. It builds trust between society as a whole and this very important company that provides a vast quantity of the information available to people every day. While trust can eventually lead to dangerous complacency, Google best serves individuals and society when the means of information gathering and sharing are clearly explained to the user. So transparency for the user is good for society and good for the individual. Trust is necessary for all sorts of business transactions to take place every day. Some of the fallout from the recent financial meltdown is not economic. The trust that should exist between society and institutions has been broken. What can we say about investment firms that bundle products in a way they know will fail, sell them to consumers in bad faith by representing them as a good investment, and then make even more money by betting against the success of their own product? How do we trust the bond rating agencies that said all of these investments were safe? All of this broken trust results from the exploitation of ethically questionable loopholes. Some argue that even though Google has been transparent in the presentation of their means of collecting and using data, they are still acting in an unethical manner by the exploitation of loopholes in their own policy. One of the problems with the data gathering activities of Google stems from the fact that the privacy policy presented in, “Good to Know” is outdated. When Google first developed their technology and product, the primary product was a very efficient search engine. Since then, Google has developed or purchased many products. Google Maps, Finance and Scholar all gather different sorts of information from the same user. Google’s recent purchase of YouTube gives this company access to even more user data. The merging of all these disparate sources of data may reveal far more to Google than any user realized. The days of using Google for search alone are over for most consumers. The current policy needs to address the fact that Google has the power to bring lots of information together to build a profile. The data collection goes far beyond search. A real example of this is keeping your physical location concealed from Google. In the privacy policy, Google explicitly states that they have no interest in gathering your actual name or physical address. But with a combination of information from Google Search and Google Maps, both of these could be readily obtained. Simply because Google says they have no interest now does not mean they will not have an interest in the future. There is no limit to the amount of time Google can keep consumer data, therefore all Google needs to do is change their stated policy and they can open up entirely new ways of directly marketing to customers whether they like it or not. Closely tied to this argument of loopholes in “Good to Know”, is the practice of sharing information. Google says that they will not share information with other businesses unless they are “trusted”. This is a subjective term and Google is the sole determinant of which businesses can be trusted and which ones cannot. The assumption is that Google will only share information with business that will not then share your information with many others. The problem with this loophole is customers have no say in who gets their information and who does not. This is not ethical because it does not respect the rights of everyone affected by the decision to share information (Meuli and Finn, 2004). In order for Google to be in better ethical standing with consumers, they should reveal the third parties that receive the information they gather. This, however will hurt Google’s bottom line because the sharing of search information is most valuable when the buyer’s anonymity can be maintained. This is key, because we need to remember that Google is a business. It is used so often that many have somehow come to think of it as some sort of public good, but it is not. Google has a responsibility to share holders to be profitable. Their profitability may be good for the economy as a whole as well. Google has recently gone on a media relations blitz that was designed to shine a light on how important the company is to the overall economy. By Google estimates, the use of AdSense, AdWords and charitable contributions of ad space to non-profit corporations totaled $54 billion USD in 2009 and $64 billion USD in 2010 (Krazit, 2010). Of particular importance according to Google, is how much of this activity was realized by small businesses. An owner of a pet grooming and boarding company said that her use of AdWords was so successful, she eventually had to stop advertising entirely because she had too much business. The targeted nature of the advertising is very appealing to a small business. They want to reach only the most likely individuals that are going to buy their good and services to see their ads. Google’s collection of personal data makes this possible. Without all of the scanning of e-mails and collecting of search inquiries, businesses would still be spending lots of revenue on advertising that had little hope of actually generating any real business. There is no guarantee that this will happen through Google either. Just because someone clicks on your ad doesn’t mean they will be buying something. But many small business owners swear by Google ads when it comes to generating business. Not everyone is accepting the idea that Google is a good idea for business, small or large, however. An independent analysis of Google’s claims has revealed that Google ignored many basic elements of economics, such as considering operating costs, and made assumptions about the money generated by AdWords and Ad Sense by as much as 100% (Sullivan, 2010). Economist Allen Rosenfeld examined each assumption made by Google and feels that they have grossly overestimated their economic impact. Primarily, he states that the harm done to the economy and society as a whole by having a company control 75% of online advertising and 78% of online searches was not a part of Google’s calculation. Their market dominance allows them to ever-expand their influence into other areas of the technology sector of the economy. The lack of competition allows them to act like a monopoly by suppressing new competition and technology. Basic assumptions of Google’s analysis, such as their assertion that each dollar of ad spending generates $2.00 of revenue. Dr. Rosenfeld found that the real number was closer to $1.30. While raising real questions about the validity of Google’s claims, it must be noted that a group fighting to keep Google out of the online booking and hospitality industry released this independent study. Finally, this question of privacy may be a moot point as society changes. It may be that these concerns fall along a generational divide. The younger generation may just not care about privacy as much because they have grown-up with Google, knowing that all of their consumer information is out there. Perhaps it will be the pre-Google generations that stress about online privacy but the younger generation simply will not. The impact of Google on society cannot be overstated. The corporation and the innovative minds that work there are going to surely keep expanding into new ventures as technology continues to change. But the core questions about privacy and the control of collected data will remain unchanged. Google does have a more transparent means of letting consumers know how their data is gathered, stored and used. You would expect this from a corporation whose informal company slogan is “Don’t be evil”. This slogan is an important aspect of company culture at Google. It shows that they recognize the very nature of their business could be used for nefarious purposes. Critics do point to the fact that there is an imbalance between the person using the search engine and the company. Google does have the upper hand in controlling the gathering and dissemination of personal information. But consumers and businesses seem to feel that the choice to search and advertise on Google is worth the giving up of information. The answers become more difficult to find when information is gathered and used without the consumer being privy to this fact. However, the ignorance of consumers does not mean that Google is acting in an unethical manner. The information is there for all to see. The believe that the gathering of information by Google is something that is an overall advantage for our society when one considers the fact that policies are in place to protect the consumer and Google ads probably contribute quite a bit to the American economy. Works Cited Blue, Violet. "Google Steps up Its Privacy Game, Launches Good To Know | ZDNet." Technology News, Analysis, Comments and Product Reviews for IT Professionals | ZDNet. 16 Oct. 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. . Krazit, Tom. "Google's Primer on How It Helps the Economy | Relevant Results - CNET News." Technology News - CNET News. CBS Interactive, 25 May 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. . Meuli, Gus, and Caitlin Finn. Google: Trust, Choice, and Privacy. Ethica Publishing. Leeds School of Business, 1 Jan. 2004. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. . Sullivan, Laurie. "MediaPost Publications Study: Google Overestimated Its Economic Impact 07/28/2011." MediaPost – News and Conferences for Media, Marketing and Online Advertising Professionals. MediaPost Communications, 27 July 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. . Thinesen, Erica. "Google Creates Guide to Educate Users about Company Information Gathering Policies | ITProPortal.com." ITProPortal.com: 24/7 Tech Commentary & Analysis. 19 Oct. 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. . Read More