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:
and
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/