A Wall Street Journal article
this week details how Google is increasingly moving to maximize
profits from the vast amount of personal data it has amassed in its
global network of servers at the expense of consumers’ privacy.
The article by Jessica Vascellaro, part of the Journal’s excellent
series about online privacy called "What They Know," shows how
commercial expediency overcame the reluctance of founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin to exploit users’ data.
Google chairman Eric Schmidt once claimed Google
put its money "where our principles are." The Internet giant’s
attempted joint redefinition with Verizon this week of "net neutrality"
and the Journal’s revealing article showing how profits are triumphing
over privacy demonstrate the stark new reality: Google puts its
principles where the money is.
So much for "don’t be evil," but then that’s how corporations really are.
Vascellaro begins her piece like this:
"A confidential, seven-page Google Inc. ‘vision
statement’ shows the information-age giant in a deep round of
soul-searching over a basic question: How far should it go in profiting
from its crown jewels—the vast trove of data it possesses about people’s
"Should it tap more of what it knows about Gmail users?
Should it build a vast ‘trading platform’ for buying and selling Web
data? Should it let people pay to not see any ads at all?"
Some possibilities like using search data to target display ads
Google sells or exchanging data with marketers for ad targeting, are
still under discussion. Others, such as behavioral targeting, which
Google prefers to call "interest-based advertising," are rapidly
becoming routine. Or as Vascellaro puts it:
"Google is pushing into uncharted privacy territory for
the company. Until recently, it refrained from aggressively cashing in
on its own data about Internet users, fearing a backlash. But the rapid
emergence of scrappy rivals who track people’s online activities and
sell that data, along with Facebook Inc.’s growth, is forcing a shift."
No matter what the founders’ original values, corporations as they
grow and mature act like, well, corporations. And Google is now a $23
billion global corporate giant. Yes, there apparently has been angst
around the Googleplex as the company started to act like all other
companies. According to the Journal:
"Tensions erupted during a meeting with about a dozen
executives at Google’s Mountain View, Calif., headquarters about 18
months ago when Messrs. Page and Brin shouted at each other over how
aggressively Google should move into targeting, according to a person
who had knowledge of the meeting. ‘It was awkward,’ this person said.
‘It was like watching your parents fight.’
"Mr. Brin was more reluctant than Mr. Page, this person
said. Eventually, he acquiesced and plans for Google to sell ads
targeted to people’s interests went ahead."
But that dynamic will continue to play out again and again whether
the roles are filled by Page and Brin, or their successors. Google is
sitting on a potential gold mine of data. The Journal puts it like
"The vision statement describes the company’s immense
search database as ‘the BEST source of user interests found on the
Internet,’ during a discussion of ways to make ads more relevant to
users. ‘No other player could compete,’ it says. Later, the document
warns that some ideas range from ‘safe’ to ‘not’ safe.
"The most aggressive ideas would put Google at the cutting edge of
the business of tracking people online to profit from their actions. A
data-trading marketplace, for instance, would allow personal information
from many sources—including Google—to be combined and used for highly
personalized tracking of individuals."
So, at the end of the day and the internal debate, Google has our
data and will exploit in increasingly intrusive and profitable ways as a
result of natural corporate pressures.
What’s the solution? Google, I’m sure, would say, "Trust us." Clearly that won’t work. People have and after some "angst" at the
Googleplex and reports of raised voices in meetings, Google is putting
principles where the money is.
The real answer: Regulation of online advertising. Congress,
perhaps because of things like the revelations in the Journal’s "What
they Know" series, is the mood. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Il, has introduced a privacy bill and Rep. Rick Boucher, D-VA, is circulating the draft of another.
In fact I’m in Washington this week and am meeting with Senate staff
members to discuss the possibility of legislation to create just such a
Such an approach has overwhelming popular support. Our recent national poll
conducted by Grove Insight Ltd. found 90% favor "more laws that
protect the privacy of your personal information; " 80% backed creation
of a "Do Not Track" list.
No matter their beginnings, companies ultimately put their principles
where the money is. It’s the responsibility of legislators and
regulators to act in the marketplace to protect consumers. The good
news now is that as Google is rapidly — even cynically — adjusting its
principles in pursuit of profits, there are signs that Congress and the
FTC will act to protect consumers privacy.
Please check our Inside Google Website
Follow Inisde Google on Twitter at www.twitter.com/cwdinsidegoogle
Follow John M. Simpson Twitter at: www.twitter.com/jomasimp