By: Aaron Lee
In a recent BBC News article on technology, Google was criticized by EU privacy watchdogs for supposedly infringing its users' rights by failing to provide adequate information about the firm's scope of collection and potential usage of their personal data. According to CNIL, the French data privacy regulator that carried out the investigations, Google “might be in breach of several of the bloc's data protection principles” for providing "incomplete and approximate" details regarding their newly updated privacy policy. UK-based organization Big Brother Watch also supported these findings, asserting that citizens need to be aware of when and how their behavior is being monitored in order to make informed choices regarding their online activity. While Google adamantly claims that it has and will continue to abide by European law, their vague and incomplete responses to official inquiries calls into question whether or not the company is truly trying to be transparent and honest about its business practices.
To that end, CNIL has recommended that Google modify its policies in order to provide users with more direct control, such as 1) allowing its members to choose under what circumstances data about them was combined by asking them to click on dedicated buttons, 2) offering a centralized opt-out tool for users to decide which services can share their data, and 3) by differentiating the tools used for security and those used for advertising. These are all crucial improvements that need to be made in order for ordinary citizens to regain direct power over how and where their data is stored and shared. As mentioned in Gilliom and Monahan's book SuperVision, people are “vaguely aware” that their cellphone data, Google searches, and Facebook posts can be monitored, but many are completely ignorant about what they stand to lose when they click “Ok, got it” without knowing which shadowy individual now has access to the most intimate details of their lives.
In fact, while the suggestions made by CNIL are a decent first step in piercing the surface of our massive surveillance society, more needs to be done. Before users can even choose under “which circumstances” data can be shared, Google should offer them the choice of whether or not they even want to share any data at all. Furthermore, instead of just “streamlining” its privacy policy—which many people do not bother to read in full anyway—Google should integrate it into everyday tasks, actively notifying users about the potential risks each step of the way via mandatory checkpoints or text pop-ups. However, does Google also have rights to use the information that—as Gilliom and Monahan remind us—we knowingly and willingly provide in the first place? Is it unfair for Google, which specializes in information gathering, to not be able to use its key resource for profit? Or should our right to privacy and security completely override that incentive? What then would be the fate of corporations like Facebook and Twitter? Balancing both profits and privacy may be a tricky legal and social issue for years to come.
Thanks for your input on this matter Aaron. I wonder if people will still be willing to use search engines such as Google even if they are given the caveat that their information will be collected? An example in which we knowingly let ourselves be tracked and monitored is through the tagging of our location on Facebook. We can take steps toward not giving our information away through tagging and other engines that require our information. Ultimately, I believe it is the government's role to intervene and protect online privacy.
ReplyDelete- Andres Diaz
You do a good job of pointing out the conflict between citizens’ right to privacy and Google’s own right to profit from its service. The citizens may collectively not value their right to privacy, but Google does value its services.
ReplyDeleteChristina A. Henriquez
I also think, as the Professor pointed out, a solution to this issue will come from us and our generation. Hearing things like this alarming, and I think there is going to be a real demand for privacy that the government is not providing or willing to provide. In response maybe the private sector will provide this, such as snapchat.
ReplyDeleteYunus
I think that when or even if the public is made aware of the privacy infringements that Google has done, most of the public will probably still use the Google search engine. Google is so engrained in our culture that people even refer to using this company’s search engine as “Googling”. Google is very aware of this immense power and takes advantage of it. If Google is forced to change its policies this company, like other big companies and the government, will find a way around them.
ReplyDelete- Tiffani Toy
It is certainly disconcerting that Google fails to be transparent in the way it monitors and collects data. As the general population is mostly unaware as to the extent Google monitors and collects data, I agree that Google should inform its users as to the extent of its surveillance. However, I'm not sure if the majority of Google users actually care whether or not Google collects information regarding our search histories etc.. Certainly sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram publicly display much more personal information than an anonymous collection of the sites we visit on google. It seems to me that an overly comprehensive explanation of its data collection policies is tedious and unnecessary.
ReplyDelete-Michael B
I wholeheartedly agree with this post. It's unfortunate that Google can probably get away with the argument that they are offering a private service which we are not "compelled" to use but by our own volition. It's rather unreasonable, however, because Google's search engine and it's email services really are woven into the architecture of our society. People are really obliged to use their services often, and the company's policies really should take into account the fact that we don't really have that much of a choice whether we use their product or not, and that given a choice, we wouldn't want them sharing what we all consider to private information.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of the extent to which we can control the information that is available about ourselves is certainly a valid one that many people don't think about at all or if so, only passingly, as was mentioned in this post. But just to play devil's advocate for a bit, how is it that so much information is available to us through services like Google? I would argue that it's precisely because Google infringes on everyone's privacy that we are able to have access to such a comprehensive database. How else would we be able to discover the latest Kardashian shenanigans or, more seriously, learn about troubling national policy issues through websites such as WikiLeaks. Even seemingly harmless material such as biographies of important historical figures is often available largely due to a pesky researcher rifling through another person's private documents. When we think about the "right to privacy" we often tend to think only in terms of ourselves, but if everyone in the world was truly able to enforce that right, we wouldn't be able to learn new things!
ReplyDelete-Molly Ruiz
I completely agree with the EU's request that Google disclose some of its business practices to the public, in order to ensure the government and the people that they are not being deceived. With the amount of information Google collects and the way that they profit off of it, it only seems reasonable that they at least explain their privacy policy in more simpler terms. In some cases, users have no other choice than to abide by the privacy policy, even if they don't agree with it. Such as all of us who are commenting on this site, we coerced into having a Google account. Why Google chooses not to fully disclose information that the EU is seeking can easily lead one to become suspicious. However, the point you made is completely but sadly true. The issue of privacy vs. profit is a difficult one. How must Google be able to provide such a service without shifting through our most private searches, emails, and locations? It is a difficult issue and it is one that will be debated numerously in the near future.
ReplyDelete- Dega Gebre
CNIL is right in suggesting that Google and other surveillance society groups offer and integrate choices for or against sharing data, actively notifying about the potential risks via checkpoints or text pop-ups (Profits or Privacy). This can only be a safety net for such companies. By operating within the terms they themselves make, companies have absolute control over information that users neglect to secure. Companies can do with any such information without having to over litigation.
ReplyDelete-Sehun Lee
Really great post, Aaron. It is interesting to hear that corporations such as Google are still highly scrutinized and subject to privacy regulations. However, Molly's point is also valid as well. The Google search engine is an enormous component of internet activity. I even have Google as my homepage whenever I click into an internet browser. Even if Google is required to disclose how it shares and profits from private information, people will not stop using its services, which are tightly woven into our social architecture. Users will most likely ignore the information or try to limit the amount of information they disclose. Changing Google's practices and policies would also require much litigation, a time and resource-consuming process. Perhaps if a competitor firm such as Bing advertised its own privacy policy, this would encourage users to use other search engines. Pressure from competitors may prove to be more effective at changing Google's policies.
ReplyDelete-Salena Tiet
As we have discussed already, and as Gilliom and Monahan mention, we live in a surveillance society. If we agree to engage in social media practices, own cell phones, have credit cards, then we can pretty much kiss our privacy good bye. I too wonder if Google also has the right to use the information that—as Gilliom and Monahan remind us—we knowingly and willingly provide in the first place? Regardless, I do not think people will stop using Google if they violate privacy policies - it has become too much a part of our everyday lives.
ReplyDelete-Maria T. Perez
I think information being shared across the world, when you put it on the internet, is inevitable. We are becoming almost a complete surveillance society, and when it comes to information we are willingly putting out there, it's hard to block corporations from using it. Google basically has a monopoly when it comes to internet data and search engines - is the whole world going to stop using it because they want to protect their privacy? probably not. Most people think/know they have nothing to hide; while many of us may find it a problem that our information is being leaked, many also don't think it's a problem at all. This is going to be a long and complicated discussion that I don't forsee a solution to, anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteHeidi
Very interesting article. While I still believe that privacy is a very important element to an individual, I think Google should start by at least notifying users when they share the individual's personal information. This will allow us to to know when are private information is being used and with whom.
ReplyDeleteYevgeniy Rokhin
I like the suggestion that Google should notify a user of potential risks by the use of mandatory checkpoints or text pop ups. It is safe to say that as you mentioned, no one really reads its privacy policy, and thus users run the risk of having their information seen by random entities.
ReplyDelete- Jacky Galeno-Escobedo
I agree that Google should be a lot more transparent when they gather personal information from our online searches. I wonder if the controversy this search engine has faced made Apple change it's automatic search engine page to Bing when you open Mac products' browsers. There should be warning pop ups when a button we press allows other entities to access our information.
ReplyDelete