[Nottingham] Google unbeatable? Absolute power corrupts?

[Martin]

On 22/10/10 16:16, Martin wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> So... I've finally been steered/coerced/(effectively forced) into
> setting up a gmail account.
> 
> So I've now got 8 *GBytes* of email and document storage online, and a
> truly impressive array of online tools that are all very helpful and useful.
> 
> And it's *ALL NO-COST FREE* all for the sake of sharing a few personal
> details and being advertised at...

[---]

> And Google's multiple terms and conditions were far too long and
> detailed to read nor comprehend.
> 
> 
> So far, Google is very successful, very good at what they do, and they
> seem to be benevolent. (They certainly have some great technology.)

The Google apps are rather good and with very good attention to detail.
I think many people must now take the Google search, and maps, and other
services pretty much for granted.

I certainly use them and they do give and provide a very good service.

However:


Google illegally divulges user searches, suit claims
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/26/google_privacy_flap/

“Over protests from privacy advocates, however, Google has consistently
and intentionally designed its services to ensure that user search
queries, which often contain highly-sensitive and
personally-identifiable information ('PII'), are routinely transferred
to marketers, data brokers, and sold and resold to countless other third
parties,” the complaint alleges.


Google boss: 'Creeped out by Street View? Just move'
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/25/schmidt_on_street_view/

"Earlier this month, Schmidt said that Google's policy is "to get right
up to the creepy line and not cross it" — which was just the most
prominent example of Schmidt getting right up to the creepy line and
leaping across it with abandon. In December, Schmidt told CNBC that if
you're concerned about Google retaining your personal data, then you
must be doing something you shouldn't be doing."


Google's Schmidt: We know what you're thinking
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/04/google_ericisms/

"We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where
you've been. We can more or less know what you're thinking about,"


For comparison and a reminder of what ISPs could(?) do (are doing?):

Prosecutors prep decision on BT-Phorm case
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/27/cps_bt_phorm/

"BT had twice trialled Phorm's targeted advertising system [using deep
packet inspection to snoop internet activity] on tens of thousands of
its customers without permission"




The old rebuff "if you're concerned about ... your personal data, then
you must be doing something you shouldn't be doing." is all well and
good only if you know who has your data and what they are doing with it.
Anything less and you leave yourself wide open to whatever unexpected
abuse of that data, and of yourself...

With the likes of Google, Twitter, Facebook, and others, is the personal
data cat already long out of the bag and at the mercy of what the
marketing minds, fraudsters, and others wish to try next?

Or do we change our culture where complete openness is expected,
accepted and guarded?

Cheers,
Martin

-- 
----------------
Martin Lomas
martin at ml1.co.uk
----------------