Gagging on Google
<http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/04/gagging-on-google/#more-1468>by 
Willem Buiter

http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/04/gagging-on-google/#more-1468 

Google is to privacy and respect for intellectual property rights 
what the Taliban are to women's rights and civil liberties: a 
daunting threat that must be fought relentlessly by all those who 
value privacy and the right to exercise, within the limits of the 
law, control over the uses made by others of their intellectual 
property.  The internet search engine company should be regulated 
rigorously, defanged and if necessary, broken up or put out of 
business.  It would not be missed.

In a nutshell, Google promotes copyright theft and voyeurism and lays 
the foundations for corporate or even official Big Brotherism.

Google, with about 50 per cent of the global internet search market, 
is the latest in a distinguished line of IT abusive monopolists.  The 
first was IBM, which was brought to heel partly by a forty-year long 
antitrust regulation (which ended in 1996) and partly by the rise of 
Microsoft.

Microsoft has been convicted of abuse of monopoly power on two 
continents, in the US as a result of a lawsuit launched by the US 
Federal Department of Justice and a fair number of States, and in the 
EU by the European Commission.  Unfortunately, by the time the US 
judicial system got to the point of deciding on remedies, the Bush 
administration was in office.  The Bush administration never saw a 
monopoly they did not like, so instead of the obvious remedy for the 
Microsoft problem - unbundling, that is, not permitting the same 
company to offer both the operating system and application programmes 
- they settled on a number of weak and rather easily circumvented 
limitations on Microsoft's ability to abuse its market power. 
Fortunately, the European Commission took over after the US 
Department of Justice was neutered and imposed further, albeit still 
limited and inadequate, legal constraints on Microsoft's ability to 
act as an abusive monopolist.

I believe that the combination of the restraining influence of the US 
Department of Justice, assorted US States and the European Commission 
Competition Directorate, under the able leadership of Neelie Kroes, 
have succeeded in shackling the Microsoft Leviathan to a sufficient 
degree to allow the survival of Apple, various commercial 
implementations of Linux and the continued use of a number of 
varieties of Unix for servers and workstations.

But the Microsoft Leviathan has now been joined or even replaced by 
Google's Godzilla as the main threat to the freedom of the internet, 
and now also a growing threat to key intellectual property rights, 
especially copyright, and privacy.

Copyright

Google has been making available copyrighted material for download on 
its websites for years (books through Google Books, music through 
YouTube, newspaper material through Google News), often without 
obtaining prior consent of the copyright holder and generally without 
making any payments to the copyright holders.  There is a word for 
that kind of behaviour: theft.  Just because you steal using internet 
technology does not make it anything other than theft.  As an author, 
this naturally concerns me.

Google Street View: the universal voyeur

Google Street View, an addition to Google Maps provides panorama 
images visible from street level in cities around the world.  The 
cameras record details of residents' lives, including pictures of 
drunk people throwing up, people in intimate clinches with persons 
with whom they are not officially affiliated, small children playing 
in a yard, with or without adult supervision, etc. etc.  A wonderful 
database for voyeurs, peeping toms and would-be child molesters.

Users with objections can register complaints before images of their 
street are made public.  Thanks a lot. On April 23, 2009, the UK 
Information Commissioner ruled that Street View, does not breach the 
Data Protection Act.  This decision, while ludicrous, was not 
surprising, as it came from an official in a country where closed 
circuit TV cameras, public and private, already cover much of the 
public domain, and have brought the UK closer to Big Brother land 
than any other country, past or present, even without the added 
contribution of Google.  The Information Commissioner's office also 
said that they would watch Google closely (perhaps using Street 
View?) to ensure that it responded quickly to requests for the 
removal of images that identified individuals.

Google and tracking cookies

Another way that Google (along with others, including Microsoft and 
Yahoo) invades our privacy is through the use of tracking cookies or 
'third-party persistent cookies' to implement interest-based 
advertising (a.k.a behavioural targeting).  From Michael Horowicz's 
illuminating article I cite the following:

Cookies are small, plain-text files that reside on your computer and 
are managed by a web browser. As web pages are downloaded to a 
computer, cookies typically come along for the ride. Likewise, as you 
make requests for new web pages, your web browser may upload a cookie 
as part of the web page request.

Cookies that come from the web page you are viewing (the one whose 
address is displayed by your web browser) are referred to as "first 
party" cookies. Those that come from other sources, be they ads on 
the web page or small independent pages (IFRAMES) included in what 
appears to you to be a single page, are "third party" cookies.

Cookies are used as the foundation of interest-based advertising 
(a.k.a behavioral targeting). This type of advertising recognizes 
things you care about and shows you ads that relate to your 
interests, even when you are viewing an unrelated web site.
For example, someone interested in dogs, will be shown dog related 
ads, even while reading news stories about financial topics."

While Google, Yahoo and Microsoft each offer you a web page where you 
can opt-out of the tracking cookies, all three companies opt you in 
by default.  That is, in my view, wrong and unethical.  We know from 
endless examples (opting in vs. opting out for trade union 
memberships, opting in vs. opting out for occupational pension 
funds,) that the 'framing' of the choice makes a massive difference 
to the outcome.   When opting in is the default, 80 per cent or more 
of employees remain subscribed to the occupational pension fund. 
When opting out is the the default, only 20 per cent may end up with 
a long term participation in the fund.  Clearly, Google, Yahoo and 
Microsoft should opt you out by default.

Search engines like those of Google, Yahoo and Microsoft can provide 
the companies that own and manage them with detailed information 
about many aspects of our lives, including our intimate, personal 
lives.  In the wrong hands that information could be used not only to 
put a commercial squeeze on people, but alto to extort and blackmail 
them.  Transferred to government hands they could provide much of the 
information required for a pretty effective and very nasty police 
state.

Can we trust Google not to abuse the information they collect?  Of 
course not.  This is a profit-seeking company.  Its owners, CEO and 
top managers are typical amoral capitalists who want to make as much 
money as they can without ending up in jail.  Their ruthless, 
unethical behaviour as regards copyright, Of course we cannot trust 
them.  They must be regulated and restrained by law so we can sleep 
at ease even though we know we cannot trust them.

A further problem is that even the act of opting out of the tracking 
cookies gambit results in one or more cookies being placed on your 
computer.  When opting out of tracking cookies results in more 
cookies, we clearly have a problem of trust.  As Michael Horowicz 
puts it "A cookie is just a plain-text file. The actions that happen 
based on the data in the cookie today could be different from the 
actions taken next week". When the asymmetry in information and power 
between the individual and Google (or any other company in a similar 
position) is as extreme as it is in this case, and when the 
commercial and control incentives for abusing the information that 
can be collected through the cookies are as strong as they obviously 
are in this case, it is irresponsible to trust Google or any other 
company capable of tracking our internet actions.  They should not be 
trusted because they cannot be trusted.

Conclusion

When confronted with criticism of Google's repeated assaults on 
copyright and privacy, Google CEO Eric Schmidt comes up with the most 
astonishing infantile defence.  It amounts to: if something can be 
done, it will be done and indeed ought to be done. 
Well, no, actually.

We can run carefully controlled experiments on the response of 
newborn infants to long-term submersion in freezing water.  We don't 
do this because it is considered cruel and inhuman.  We have even 
declared such act to be illegal.

We can deal with annoying little foreign countries by dropping 
H-bombs on their cities, killing most of their population and turning 
the country into a radio-active hell hole.  We chose not to do this 
because it offends our sense of proportion and its irreconcilability 
with any notion of a just war.  We can, easily and effortlessly do a 
great many things that we either voluntarily choose not to do, or 
that we are prevented from doing by law or other social constraints.

Google company's founding motto is: 'Don't be evil.'  But it does 
evil.  It has indeed, become the new evil empire of the internet.  It 
is time for people to take a stand, as individual consumers and 
internet users, and collectively through laws and regulations, to 
tame this new Leviathan.  When I get back from this trip, I will do 
my best to remove every trace of Google from my computers, even the 
tracking cookies (if I can!).

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to Mark Crispin Miller's 
"News From Underground" newsgroup.

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to 
[email protected] OR go to 
http://groups.google.com/group/newsfromunderground and click on the 
"Unsubscribe or change membership" link in the yellow bar at the top of the 
page, then click the "Unsubscribe" button on the next page. 

For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to