From deception to deceit: Google and privacy? Don’t make me laugh

Citation

Gorman, G.E. (2012), "From deception to deceit: Google and privacy? Don’t make me laugh", Online Information Review, Vol. 36 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir.2012.26436caa.001

From deception to deceit: Google and privacy? Don’t make me laugh

Article Type: Editorial From: Online Information Review, Volume 36, Issue 3

Let me declare a vested interest: my e-mail provider of choice is gmail, both as editor of this journal and as a “private individual”. This is perhaps all the more reason for me to be uneasy about Google’s increasing encroachments on my privacy and my growing lack of faith in Google – it really does seem to be just another corporate giant trampling on the rights of individuals. What do I mean?

The Economist (25 January 2012). “Google and online privacy: all together now”.

Google introduces a new privacy regime under the smokescreen of providing “better client services” – how do people making these statements sleep at night? Babbage is no fool:

[…] there are other, unspoken reasons that Google is keen to make this change. By creating comprehensive profiles of users by combining crumbs of data they leave across its services, the firm is betting it can target more online ads at them more accurately. It also wants to position itself as a comprehensive online portal in order to compete more effectively with Facebook, which is soaking up an ever-increasing amount of web surfers’ time (www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/01/google-and-online-privacy).

The rub here is that Google refuses to allow its users genuinely to “opt out” of this scheme, and to have any real power over their own data – no matter what Google say, it is not possible to do so, as anyone who battles the adverts appearing with e-mails can attest:

The Economist (17 Febuary 2012). “Google and online privacy: a cookie monster?”

When Google announced recently that it intended to combine data about users of its various services into single profiles that would help it to better target ads and services at them, it provoked an outcry from privacy groups. Now the company is under fire once again. Google stands accused of deliberately circumventing barriers in Apple’s Safari web browser designed to block it and other firms from tracking users as they surf the web (www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/02/google-and-online-privacy).

Google claimed that the tracking was unintentional, and that it did not breach individuals’ privacy. But Babbage, never the fool, asks two pointed questions:

1. 1.

   “[…] Why didn’t a company as technically sophisticated as Google immediately spot that its actions had opened the door to its ad-tracking cookies on Safari?”

2. 2.

   “[…] Given that last year Google was forced by America’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to submit to regular independent audits of its privacy policies and practices […], why wasn’t it more careful about deploying new software in what was clearly a sensitive area?”

The Economist (1 March 2012). “Online privacy: Google presses on”:

Asked recently what he thought about Google’s new privacy rules, which came into effect on March 1st, Jon Leibowitz, the head of America’s Federal Trade Commission, replied that he thought they presented consumers with “a fairly binary and somewhat brutal choice”. Either they accept all of Google’s changes or they have to avoid signing into its services altogether.

Yes, there is this choice, but how realistic is it, when Google is arguably the most advanced and agile email provider and search engine available? Google know they have a good product, and use this to impose their own choices on us under the banner, “yes, we are flexible, as long as you do it our way”.

Why is this an issue? Ten years ago we were presented with a book edited by Anne Mintz and titled Web of Deception: Misinformation on the Internet. In this she and her contributors sought to help create a more critically aware online community that would be better prepared to deal with hoaxes, scams, identity theft, misinformation of all kinds and fraudulent e-commerce schemes. A decade later Mintz presents us with Web of Deceit: Misinformation and Manipulation in the Age of Social Media.

Let us look at the wording of these two titles. In 2002 Mintz was concerned with “deception”, the act of deceiving (Mintz, 2002). In 2012 she has moved on to “deceit”, still the act of deceiving (Mintz, 2012), but with deliberate intent or by deliberate misrepresentation. Perhaps unintentionally, Mintz is suggesting that as we move further into the twenty-first century we are seeing more deliberate and calculated acts of misinformation, as The Economist pieces on Google seem to suggest.

Ten years ago deception and misinformation seemed to be just short-lived aberrations in an otherwise brave new world, something that might pass as we became more critical of and better educated in the ways of the worldwide web. Then the web was less central to our lives, with great segments of society remaining unconnected. Now, with the rapid pace of change in ICTs, with both younger and older people becoming web-savvy, and with social media invading every nook and cranny of our lives, we are connected and networked in ways never imagined. This makes the “web of deceit” more dangerous, more ubiquitous and more uncontrollable than ever before.

Of course big players like Google realise this, and behind the smokescreen responsible corporate behaviour they call the tune and pay the piper strictly to their own advantage. The clients, we who use social media, have virtually no real say in the matter. In this environment what we need is much greater awareness of the dangers in web usage, and this must be spread broadly across all segment of society. People like Anne Mintz in their writing have a role to play in this endeavour. Others need to serve as more effective whistleblowers, blowing in concert and working together much more than at present. There are plenty of such whistleblowers, but people have not been adequately educated in guerilla tactics once the whistle has been blown.

This is the real failure of the present decade – we lack broadly based education for young and old about how to protect our privacy online. Also, and perhaps ironically, we tend not to use social media in a professional manner and for professional purposes, particularly as an easy means of staying in contact, sharing information and views, and for mobilising opinion. If we are able to address these weaknesses, then we may be in a better position to say “no” to Google and other who would have us kowtow to their strictly commercial needs with no respect for our wishes or needs.

G.E. GormanEditor, Online Information Review