«  Using Google Earth to teach Geology Main Paul Courant of Michigan Addresses Google Book Search Criticism  »

Googling Google(November-December2007)

Privacy Inc. Googling Google

Google, which earned $1.1 billion in operating income in the second quarter of 2007 alone, is now the single most important company on the Internet. Catapulted to a position of power by an ingenious and effective search engine, Google has since branched out, offering photo sharing, social networking, on-line shopping, e-mail accounts, a map of your neighborhood—even a digital copy of the novel you’ve been dying to read. “Google has become such a commonly used resource that people are beginning to regard it as synonymous with the Web,” writes David “Doc” Searls, a fellow this year and last at Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, a research program devoted to the study, exploration, and development of the Internet and Internet law. Searls is the author of a widely cited blog about technology and the Internet, and a self-proclaimed fan of Google.

Via Google Maps: A birds-eye view of Harvard Magazine

The size of Google’s empire and the quantity of customer data it may possess prompt suspicion from some observers. They wonder what Google may do with the massive amounts of information it has gathered—potentially the text of every e-mail sent via Gmail, every Google search performed, every advertisement clicked on, every address to which someone seeks directions using Google Maps. Earlier this year, the London-based group Privacy International gave Google the lowest possible grade, accusing the company of “comprehensive consumer surveillance and entrenched hostility to privacy.” Even if Google guards all its data zealously and does nothing nefarious with it, the possibility of hackers or identity thieves getting access is undeniably frightening, no matter how unlikely.

Google’s reputation for a culture of secrecy fuels such suspicion. Take the company’s reluctance to discuss its international network of “server farms”: collections of computer servers for processing and storing data. The “farms” require massive amounts of electricity and plentiful fiber-optic cable, and produce so much heat that they need adjacent cooling plants. Local officials in the small Oregon community where the company has built one the size of two football fields told the New York Times they couldn’t discuss the facility because they had signed confidentiality agreements with Google. The company will not disclose how many locations or how many servers make up its network; the Times reporter was forced to resort to such imprecise phrases as “best guess” when citing the estimated number of Google servers worldwide—450,000—and describing what the Oregon server farm “will probably house.”

In May, Google debuted a new function, Street View, which offers eye-level photographs of individual buildings along entire streets in several U.S. urban areas. The photographs were taken not by people, Google said, but by cameras in special vehicles; the resolution was high enough that some people complained after going on line and seeing their pets or other details of their private lives captured by the robotic photographers.

Yet Searls resists divining anything sinister. Google has grown large, he says, simply because “they happen to do a real good job at what they do.” The ability to perform quick, powerful, accurate Web searches has transformed the way we live our lives, from shopping to tracking down an old college roommate to writing a research paper or news article.

On privacy matters, the official response from Google is that the company has made a point of building “transparency and choice” for customers into all its endeavors, says Peter Fleischer ’83, J.D. ’87, who serves as global privacy counsel for the company. Gmail account holders who have made purchases using Google Checkout, for instance, can view their purchase history at the click of a mouse; people wary of having their credit-card information, mailing address, and shopping habits stored in the same place as all their e-mail can choose to pay a different way. Fleischer points out that the minimum amount of information required to register for a Gmail account is quite small—a first and last name—and even that information can be falsified: there is no requirement that users enter their real names. Any additional information the user gives Google is provided voluntarily, in exchange for some additional benefit.

And such trade-offs are not unique to interactions with Google. Whenever we pay with a credit card at a restaurant or gas station, we create a paper trail and increase our exposure to identity theft by some small factor. We could use cash instead, but most of us consider the risk so negligible that we choose convenience.

Searls reminds those who fear Google that Microsoft’s once seemingly unbreakable “hegemony”—based on Internet Explorer, Windows, and Office software—has begun to show cracks. That, in part, is thanks to Google’s efforts to make the Microsoft products irrelevant by creating free Web-based programs that do the same things.

Searls suggests that Google will also lose its dominance, and thinks the concept he’s developing at the Berkman Center may play a role in that process. He believes the Internet is ripe for a consumer revolution that will empower individuals to define the terms of their relationships with companies, rather than let the companies dictate the terms. His name for the idea—Project VRM—stands for “vendor relationship management,” as opposed to the established corporate jargon of “customer relationship management.” In Searls’s utopian vision, companies that insist on collecting all kinds of extraneous information will lose out to those firms willing to provide the same services for a “lower information cost,” so to speak, as customers refuse to relinquish any more information than is absolutely necessary to provide the services they desire. Searls sees sizable unmet demand in this arena, and believes that every company will be forced to adapt—including Google.

~Elizabeth Gudrais


Comments (2)

the sooner this evolution in viewpoint takes place the beter. The corporate world must adapt to us. The old way, letting business act like a dictator, has led us to the eve of distruction. Shifting blame to hide the truth will not save us in the end. Those such as Google know this and posture feverishly while being amazed how slow we react to their atrocities.

Frank Pasquale on November 5, 2007 6:07 PM:

I need to hear a lot more about Searls's proposed VRM to be convinced that individual action can work to preserve privacy. I think regulation is needed.

Let's say that I decide to take a VRM approach to social networking, and negotiate a better "privacy deal" with some non-facebook site. Does Searls really think I can convince all my friends to re-input all of their data from FaceBook to my preferred site? Maybe if some social networking bill of rights gives them the right to pack up their data into a mobile file, but I doubt that even then the inertia and network effects could be overcome.

By and large, individuals hyperbolically discount future privacy protection for small monetary gains in the present. Privacy is better considered an irreducibly social good than some quantum of enjoyment individuals trade off for money. As Cass Sunstein and Robert Frank suggested in their work on cost benefit analysis and relative position, given the importance of positional goods in today's society, people who trade off safety/privacy/etc. will likely "outcompete" peers who won't do so. They will have more money and more convenience. Though Sunstein and Frank's work was inspired by health and safety regulations, its upshot applies equally well to privacy:

"When a regulation requires all [individuals to purchase] additional [privacy], each . . . gives up the same amount of other goods, so no [one] experiences a decline in relative living standards. The upshot is that an individual will value an across-the-board increase in [privacy] much more highly than an increase in safety that he alone purchases."

A collective commitment to privacy is far more likely to succeed than a private, transactional approach that all but guarantees a "race to the bottom.

Post a comment

We had to crank up the spam filter so it may take a little while to appear. Thanks.

A book in progress by

Siva Vaidhyanathan

Siva Vaidhyanathan

This blog, the result of a collaboration between myself and the Institute for the Future of the Book, is dedicated to exploring the process of writing a critical interpretation of the actions and intentions behind the cultural behemoth that is Google, Inc. The book will answer three key questions: What does the world look like through the lens of Google?; How is Google's ubiquity affecting the production and dissemination of knowledge?; and how has the corporation altered the rules and practices that govern other companies, institutions, and states? [more]

» Send links, questions and ideas:
siva [at] googlizationofeverything [dot] com

» To reach me for a press query, please write to SIVAMEDIA ut POBOX dut COM

» To reach me for a speaking invitation, please write to SIVASPEAK ut POBOX dut COM

» Visit my main blog: SIVACRACY.NET

» More about me


Like the Mind of God (22 posts)

All the World's Information (26 posts)

What If Big Ads Don't Work (10 posts)

Don't Be Evil (9 posts)

Is Google a Library? (43 posts)

Challenging Big Media (18 posts)

The Dossier (19 posts)

Global Google (3 posts)

Google Earth (3 posts)

A Public Utility? (19 posts)

About this Book (16 posts)

Other books by Siva:


Rewiring the Nation: The Place of Technology in American Studies (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007)

The Anarchist in the Library (Basic Books, 2004)

Copyrights and copywrongs cover

Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity (New York University Press, 2001)


  • Sivacracy.net
  • if:book
RSS Feed icon  RSS Feed

Powered by Movable Type 3.35