Is Google the Evil Empire or a Benevolent Monopoly?

Wells reminds us that Google owns

• The top-ranked search portal
• A wildly popular e-mail service
• A leading feed reader
• The top-ranked feed management system
• The top-ranked analytics product
• The largest distributed ad network
• The most widely-distributed traffic monitoring toolbar 
• The largest video content hosting site

With the ubiquity of Google in all of these forms across the digital world, they now collect data from millions of its accounts every day (Wells, 2014) which creates a double edged sword for this behemoth that can be summed up in these two quotes:

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Lord Acton)

and

Power doesn't always corrupt. Power can cleanse. What I believe is always true about power is that power always reveals. (Robert Caro)

Whether we view Google as the evil empire or the benevolent monopoly depends on your perspective, and can be argued both ways. But it does beg the bigger question:

Since Google has ultimate power, are they capable of protecting consumer privacy and can a private enterprise be held to a higher standard in society?

THE EVIL EMPIRE

Recent news stories would suggest that Google may not be conducting business for the common good. According to Eric K. Clemons, Professor of Operations and Information Management at the Wharton School Google definitely falls into the camp of abuse of power:

“Power corrupts. I don't know if absolute power corrupts absolutely, but it certainly provides the opportunity for some pretty spectacular abuses. Absolute power also provides mechanisms for hiding your abuses, or at least provides some mechanisms for avoiding significant punishment. Bank robbers go to jail; after the major DOJ "drug smuggling scandal" Google was allowed to return the profits it illegally obtained in exchange for having all the DOJ's evidence sealed. This is a much better deal than the treatment offered others who might be guilty of repeated felonies (Clemons,2011)”.

Professor Clemons states that Google Analytics (GA) violates EU laws on the privacy of data regarding individuals since the product reports back to Google the IP address of all visitors to these businesses, allowing Google to track the Internet traffic of individuals all over the world, regardless of whether they, or these businesses, had agreed to this tracking. This practice has been ruled illegal in Germany, and there is also other functionality within GA that utilizes behavioral tracking without obtaining prior consent from all visitors to their website (Clemons, 2011).

However; Professor Clemons goes even further in his concerns over Google and its overreaching strategy:

“The company's new privacy policy goes beyond anything the world has seen before, in which Google asserts the right to combine all the information it can obtain from any sources, including those never authorized by the provider, like the sender of email to a Gmail account … Somehow, the combination of no adult supervision, unlimited access to private information, and a sequence of questionable behavior causes me to wonder if Google's present governance model may simply be unacceptable” (Clemons, 2011).

Mike Schuster, writing in the USA Today, also expressed concerns regarding Google’s intentions after the recent acquisition of Nest saying “If you were already worried about the scope of Google's data mining, news of a recent buyout may have you ready to rip that glowing thermostat from your wall” (Schuster, 2014). But there may also be more disconcerting behavior beneath the surface. Privacy advocates are concerned about Google's involvement with devices that already monitor consumer behavior and presence. For example, Schuster says that the Nest thermostat has a motion sensor which activates the screen and changes temperature settings when it registers someone walking past. This has caused some privacy advocates to worry about what Google could potentially do with this kind of personal information that has been stored in the Nest product (Schuster, 2014).

THE BENEVOLENT MONOPOLY

On the other side of the argument are those who feel that with supreme power comes the opportunity to do great things. In addition, society’s definition of privacy has changed vastly in recent years. We live in an age increasingly shaped by our attitudes to, and our definition of, privacy and in many ways our changing relationship with technology is at the heart of this. In reviewing the privacy controversies of the last few years, Jemima Kiss reclassifies the argument as an "inversion of privacy" and not an “invasion of privacy (Kiss, 2014).  Writing in The Guardian, she states that the boundary between the public and the private is porous and one person might be happy to over share baby photos publicly, while another person would be loath to being included in a Facebook semi-public "friend" discussion (Kiss, 2014).

As privacy and our willingness to share in a connected world is being redefined, Google is simply acting as a facilitator of consumer behavior. When challenged, Eric Schmidt of Google reassures us that Google relies on trust and when you lose that trust, Google stands to potentially lose the consumer (Kiss, 2014). But just as privacy is no longer absolute in today’s age, neither is trust. We find different levels of appropriate privacy and, as consumers, we need to decide for ourselves if we can trust a company enough to give it precious data about ourselves.

So, certainly, if absolute power provides both the ability to commit spectacular abuses and the ability to hide them, then absolute power demands absolute integrity (Clemons, 2011). It may however be too much to ask our institutions to protect public interest while forwarding private gain. When this happens and the lines become blurred, we will need serious oversight including internal corporate governance matched with governmental or regulatory overview.

THE BOTTOM LINE

While Google Analytics itself may not fall within the guidelines and EU restrictions, companies using Google Analytics can still stay within the EU laws by being more transparent to their end users. Optanon provides ICO guidance that says: "If the information collected about website use is passed to a third party you should make this absolutely clear to the user.  You should review what this third party does with the information about your website visitors." Therefore in the instance of "benchmarking" it is clear consent must be achieved for a website to pass information to Google”(http://www.cookielaw.org/google-analytics-eu-cookie-law).

When an all-powerful company acts honorably, then regulation can be done without a heavy hand, and without being especially intrusive. But if the company demonstrably has failed in its own oversight, by demonstrably violating cultural, ethical, and legal norms, then it's time for more serious government intervention (Clemson, 2012).

Google sits at a fulcrum in their history where they need to choose which side of the great divide they want to embrace. Battling the Department of Justice in a flagrant violation of privacy violates our trust, but they can also use their power to do tremendous good for society in the name of freedom of speech and knowledge sharing.  

I hope that Google will take the advice of the sage Bob Dylan:

"But to live outside the law, you must be honest
I know you always say that you agree"

Want to learn more? Visit these references:

Optanon. Google Analytics EU Cookie Law. Retrieved February 17, 2014 from: http://www.cookielaw.org/google-analytics-eu-cookie-law/

Clemons, E., Professor of Operations and Information Management at The Wharton School "Say It Ain't So, Joe, Again, and Again, and Again ...": A Legacy of Continued Bad Behavior at Google. from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-k-clemons/google-privacy-case_b_1522874.html

Clemons, E. & Wilson J. (2012, October 9) Can Google Influence an Election? Retrieved February 17, 2014 from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-k-clemons/google-election-2012_b_1952725.html

Bob Dylan, "Absolutely Sweet Marie," Copyright © 1966 by Dwarf Music; renewed 1994 by Dwarf Music. Retrieved February 16, 2014 from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-k-clemons/google-privacy-case_b_1522874.html

Kiss, J. (2014, February 8) Worried about your privacy? Wait until the drones start stalking you. Google's Street View and Facebook push the private into the public. Now watch out for tiny flying cameras. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/09/privacy-concerns-google-streetview-facebook-drones

Lord Acton Quote. Retrieved February 16, 2014 from: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/power_corrupts.html

Mike Schuster (2014, January 16). After Google's acquisition of Nest, privacy advocates are weary of what Google will do next. Retrieved February 17, 2014 from: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/01/16/google-acquires-nest-privacy/4518317/

Robert Caro Quote. Retrieved February 16, 2014 from: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/power_corrupts.html#LhtFCb3LDfWZApux.99