homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.191.154
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: goodroi

Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues Forum

    
Google Has a Plan For Social Networking
engine

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month Best Post Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 12:55 pm on Oct 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

Just days ago, Steve Ballmer, Microsoft’s chief executive was warning that social networking may be a fad.
Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, is far less dismissive.

“People don’t appreciate how many page views on the Internet are in social networks,” Mr. Schmidt told a group of reporters at the end of its Zeitgeist conference, a two-day gathering of an eclectic mix of Google partners, competitors, social activists and politicians.

Mr. Schmidt did say that over the next year, Google is planning to use information it has about the connections between its users, something techies call the “social graph,” to improve searches and other Google services.

Google Has a Plan For Social Networking [bits.blogs.nytimes.com]

How's you social graph looking these days?

 

vincevincevince

WebmasterWorld Senior Member vincevincevince us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 1:00 pm on Oct 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

It must really really upset Google. A whole range of websites full of information they can't access. I'll bet they had a party when Facebook decided to allow limited profile crawling.

grelmar

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 2:20 pm on Oct 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

...A whole range of websites full of information they can't access...

Who says they can't access it?

How many Social Networks serve up adsense? How many use analytics? How many individual users have figured out how to put analytics on their pages?

Would it really be all that hard for G to have a number of "profiles" created that allow some specialised bots to have access to "members only" areas?

Just because it ain't in the SERPS, doesn't mean that G doesn't know about it, or can't crawl it.

“People don’t appreciate how many page views on the Internet are in social networks,” Mr. Schmidt told a group of reporters...

The implication here is that while people at large don't know about the number of pages views, Google has a pretty fair idea.

Google is planning to use information it has about the connections between its users, something techies call the “social graph,” to improve searches and other Google services.

This tells me that Google has better than a fair idea, they have a damn clear picture.

sun818

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 3:34 pm on Oct 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

Too much information in one place. Privacy policy needs to change so that Google's different business units can not share data.

jtara

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jtara us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 4:30 pm on Oct 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

This is just one more reason why I block ads and cookies in web pages, have my email client set to not download remote images, and don't log-in to Google except when I have to (say, for Adwords) then log-out before browsing.

I turn on cookies selectively for sites that need them that I can't live without. And there's a handy little icon in my email client to download remote images individually on messages when I want to see them.

More and more people will be taking these steps to protect their privacy. Google is shooting themselves in the foot, IMO. But, again, the whole industry is by being over-aggressive trying to connect the dots.

Unfortunately, it's a race to the bottom.

randle

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 4:48 pm on Oct 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google is planning to use information it has about the connections between its users, something techies call the “social graph,”

I’m no tin hatter by any stretch, but statements like this give me the creeps. I really don’t need them trying to anticipate what I want based upon social trend theories they create through data mining of user behaviors.

I just want to use their search engine and products, and even spend some money with their advertisers; why can’t we just leave the relationship at that?

They can leave me out of the "social graph" if it's not to much trouble.

Miamacs

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 5:09 pm on Oct 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

How many Social Networks serve up adsense?

I wouldn't know about that,... but how many pages on YouTube show public service ads because AdSense can't crawl the pages, and Google hadn't done a single thing to change that? ( And that's a $1.8 billion site )

I mean if they can't utilize their own tools on their own social sites I'm not sure what to expect from their initiative.

One thing is for sure, they did pass on a patent not so long ago that would try and make use of popularity, other than links to a URL, and mine textual and other information in order to raise the relevance of certain entities in web search.

But what that would have to do with what MS said, again is a mystery.
Besides, I'm yet to see the idea in action.

...

I'm with MS on this one.
Community networking isn't a good place to advertise.
This pageview argument is as silly as bragging about HITS to a website. So what... what's the point if the traffic doesn't convert?

Branding...?
You know... I hear P0RN also has a LOT of pageviews.
I wonder if they'll make some use of that fact.
Launch ****tube? ( insert funny pun of your own. surely you have one, I don't )
networking communities and p0rn are probably the two far ends of the same spectrum considering their audience

...

Besides community sites tend to cater to the more self-conscious people who are actively resisting aggressive commercial ads.

I know from experience ( seeing myself, friends and users' behavior ) that people using social networking sites are NOT interested in anything but pure fun [wasting time and-or boosting their own/each others' ego or just feeling less lonely]. It's a treatment for those who are so special ( either in a good or in a bad way ) that they can't find a proper community/audience to match their interests offline.

I can't remember a single *success* story originating from such networking sites that wasn't for/about a unique form of entertainment, and trying to build a profit of all the cirlces, underground or low profile entertainers is just plain silly. You can't.

... in short I have no idea what Google is up to, and if you ask me, neither do they. Their staff is probably waiting for people's reaction to their statements and see if we can come up with something for they didn't. *smirk*

And that's yet another aspect they can close in on Microsoft ...

Socgraph or whatever is only in Google's interest to further map marketable areas, right? And see if it can produce some extra bucks off of selling propert...er... uh... I mean ads. But to whom? Why? What ads? Ads about a small band in a small town? Or ads FOR the small band in the small town? Or... small town ads to small town people on the small town band's profile? Good luck with either.

...

[edited by: Miamacs at 5:17 pm (utc) on Oct. 12, 2007]

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 5:21 pm on Oct 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

I know from experience ( seeing myself, friends and users' behavior ) that people using social networking sites are NOT interested in anything but pure fun [wasting time and-or boosting their own/each others' ego or just feeling less lonely].

That doesn't mean you and your friends aren't a good audience for branding ads that build awareness (as opposed to direct-response text ads).

Let's say, for example, that Google discovers that you're frequently browsing YouTube after midnight local time. Pretty soon, you're seeing ads for Ambien, Lunesta, or Tylenol PM (not unlike the viewers of late-night TV shows).

Miamacs

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 6:05 pm on Oct 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

Yeah, well that was pretty much the only thing I could think of ( see above )

Branding.

well,

I'm looking forward to their refined targeting and advertisers.
As I've said YouTube doesn't even display AdSense properly.

...

But since we're getting into the discussion... is this going to be...

a.: Google collects user data from social sites, but uses the data to display related ads somewhere ELSE ( for example... when I do a web search )

b.: Google collects user data from social sites, and uses the data to display related ads on these social sites

...

My answers:

a.: uninstall toolbar, delete all Google related accounts, file lawsuit. ( perhaps in reverse order )
b.: don't really care.

Reasoning for answer on point a.:
I sign the licence agreement with myspace for example, about how they can handle my data. Then comes along Google, scans a few hundred million pages, draws a social graph using the otherwise public stuff. Then it matches the advertiser data with whatever it thinks about me and starts showing ads around the places I visit based on what commonalities it saw within the 'virtual community' and its interests. ( I might get offended, I did before, once... )

I have a hard time swallowing the 'others who were interested in XYZ bought these too' feature on Amazon.

If Google starts to mine, match up, exploit the connectinos it ASSUMES to be present between different interests, I'm not kidding, the result might be offensive. We're talking about community networking here, where there's something freakish/disturbing one click away no matter where you go.

And I'm a touchy person, if they offend me, I'll sue.
( yeah sure, or simply won't use Google anymore )

...

OK, who else is thinking the same way?

...

bhartzer

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 7:19 pm on Oct 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

What about Google bookmarks?

jtara

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jtara us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 7:26 pm on Oct 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

What about Google bookmarks?

Somebody uses those?

Like most Google users, I use search and maps - and that's it.

And I have a funny feeling I shouldn't be using maps.

I do deny Google cookies - but then there is that pesky fixed-IP address.

I'm not paranoid enough to use proxy servers, though.

I think we are likely to be more skeptical here than the general public, though. After all - we know how sausage is made.

Note that Schmidt didn't say that Google was planning on using information from social networking sites - he said that they plan on using information that they have about user's social connections.

lorenzinho2

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 8:13 pm on Oct 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

I've heard the Google wants to make this social graph portable - meaning you can bring your network of relationships to other sites. They're also working (with a few other big companies) on standards that would allow other sites to make their sites open to receive these graphs.

This is obviously an attempt to slow down Facebook's momentum... Facebook, of course, doesn't allow anybody else to use its map of social relationships, including its users.

httpwebwitch

WebmasterWorld Administrator httpwebwitch us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 9:00 pm on Oct 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

I would not be happy if Google uses social connections to infer what I like. I have a lot of friends who love hockey, but I can't stand the sport. If I start seeing hockey ads all over everything I visit, I'll lose my lid

callivert

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 10:07 pm on Oct 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

Microsoft is wrong. The particular type of social networking site known as social bookmarking might be a fad (sites such as Digg, del.icio.us), but social networking in general is here to stay. Don't think of them as websites.
Think of it as email 2.0.
Google's also on the wrong track: using peoples social networks to sell them stuff is tacky and creepy.
Also, I don't think I'd want to import all my friends from one place to another. Having different networking sites is about different circles, different groups of friends. I want my networks separate.

bhartzer

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 11:27 pm on Oct 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

Social bookmarking is not a fad and isn't going away anytime soon. Last time I checked, digg visitors were coming from their home page to sites at about 50-100 visitors a second or more.

People like to see what their trusted "friends" recommend to them. That's not going to change. Social bookmarking is here to stay, get used to it.

Google would be smart to stay far away from "privacy issues" and digging (no pun intended) into what sites we're going to and telling everyone else about them; instead, they're going to have to let us tell our friends what we recommend.

oodlum

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 2:55 am on Oct 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

I know from experience ( seeing myself, friends and users' behavior ) that people using social networking sites are NOT interested in anything but pure fun [wasting time and-or boosting their own/each others' ego or just feeling less lonely]. It's a treatment for those who are so special ( either in a good or in a bad way ) that they can't find a proper community/audience to match their interests offline.

Myspace, I agree, but Facebook is something alltogether more significant; social networking refined and optimised to the point of making Myspace look like a clumsy school project (ironic, considering myspace was started by a corporation and Facebook really was a school project).

It was only a couple of weeks ago I capitulated to my friends' demands and joined Facebook. Already my network is a fair representation of my offline life. Sisters, cousins, uncles, aunts, friends, hook-ups I had in college. I'll log into my home page to see what everyone is up to today. Creepy? Yeah, but it seems we're all getting used to the idea.

I can really see fb or something similar becoming the default home page for people's lives.

callivert

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 4:32 am on Oct 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Social bookmarking is not a fad and isn't going away anytime soon.

I said "might" :-)
But you're right. Social bookmarking is looking pretty solid. It hasn't peaked yet, not even close.

JS_Harris

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 7:18 am on Oct 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

First there was the net - cool stuff to look at and talk about later.

Next there were social networks - cool places to do the talking in.

What the short term future holds is great content sites having up to date social networking capabilities. eBay just got their feet wet with it although i'd give the results mixed reviews so far.

pageoneresults

WebmasterWorld Senior Member pageoneresults us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 7:34 am on Oct 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Note that Schmidt didn't say that Google was planning on using information from social networking sites - he said that they plan on using information that they have about user's social connections.

And one sure way to get to that information is from iGoogle. There's an entire patent (or two) that discusses this methodology. Google Personal Pages and Google Bookmarks are going to go a long way in helping Google with their Plan for Social Networking.

The Gorg continue to assimilate...

creeking

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 9:07 am on Oct 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

they have access to searches, click information, emails, email addresses, blogs, and chat logs. lots to sift through.

oh, yeah, since they are a registrar now, they have access to lots of domain information.

Miamacs

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 11:35 am on Oct 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

cousins, uncles, aunts, friends, hook-ups I had in college. I'll log into my home page to see what everyone is up to today. Creepy? Yeah, but it seems we're all getting used to the idea.

Well, ok, and there's also an abundance of myspace/facebook clones which do pretty much the same, only regionally or in different languages and are just as successful... only on a smaller scale. Some are closed to non-members and SE bots, some are wide open unless you make them private.

But the question is... what does that kind of online social life have to do with anything Google could have in its plans?

I mean I don't know what they're planning, but again, having access to data doesn't always mean you can use it as you please. The best example would be their own SERPs, right?

It becomes a bit blurry when it's not the data that's being used, only the outcome of its analysis, but this isn't just a one time academic research, this is Google trying to automate something on a grand scale... and just how comfortable would we feel if our family life, connections with friends, and hobbies would all add up to our... *cough* Google experience in one way or another?

...

I'm not sure I'd like that.
Imagine if an organization close to (any) government would have announced the same 'social graph' or whatnot... what's the difference? The difference is that we *think* that Google would 'only' use such a system for commercial purposes.

Wow, what a relief. *groan*

OK, enough of the tinhat quarter.
They're probably well aware of all of this.
And would only use their mapping power in a way it can't be tracked back to them analyzing every individual profile to the last letter... ie. only for the refining of their existing search/ad targeting, association of different topics and such. I can't believe they'd be as irresponsible to make it more detailed.

( But please alert me if they go over the line. I'm lazy to start one, but could still buy shares in a rep management company. They'd be as busy as ever, that's for sure. )

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 3:44 pm on Oct 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

If you're genuinely worried about privacy, focus your anger or paranoia on things that really matter. Example: My wife called a credit-card company a while back about our account. They asked a series of "security questions" to make sure that my wife was the account holder. Those questions included the name and address of our grown-up daughter in another state (information that we'd never given the credit-card company). To me, that kind of thing is a lot more creepy than whether Google knows that johndoe1784 has links to anonymous9732 and alias9931 on a social network.

Miamacs

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 7:06 pm on Oct 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

...

So as long as others have it wrong too I shouldn't be worried.
Ok... but isn't there just a puny, tiny difference here?

It took me about 2 minutes to learn the answer to the question you mentioned above.

I queried Google for it.

I can't query VISA / American Express.

Perhaps they had it on file because of different reasons, like a debit card issued by them, or perhaps it was your daughter's personal info that indicated the relation. Either way... again... I can't ask them this question.

But I *can* ask Google.

I also learned of cerain books, art photography, and a bunch of things that needed my kind of reasoning to get me from WW to the info.

It's not like Google is at fault for this... I know.
The info was on your site.
Not that it couldn't have been elsewhere, posted by just about anyone. ( hint hint zoom hint info )

This 'SocialGraph' thing is far less severe of a problem -- compared to Google itself -- than the fuss I'm making here, sure... and it can be sued both ways... ( i'm leaving that typo there ) It'd be fun to query Google to learn what my cousin would (have) like(d) for her bday *grin* ... after all her sizes, which I didn't know ( she's the smallest in the family ) are online along with two portraits on a face model agency site... ( blah, we're not on the same terms as for fashion... I already got her something, don't worry she said it was cool ).

But it's not the most comfortable feeling knowing there could be an even MORE convenient little feature that can be used to MINE the data, even co-relations that were too faint for the current semantic web search algo to cough up info for.

If you allow such not-for-others stuff to be included ( for eg. social site data, user co-relations, interests ), that's it, you have a person's profile to the last letter, and it can be used even MORE for spam, stalking, abuse, phishing, identity theft. The "world's information is being gathered, sorted and stored" by a private company you know, and while I'm sure they mean no ill ( considering that'd be the end of them ), whoever believes that they'll be the first company that never screws up? Or should we wait until they need to hide behind the 'weapons don't... people do...' rhethoric? Nope, this is extremely dangerous this time.

They're mentioning 'we'll scan your online social life' that never was meant to be looked up / analyzed by the public at large. Don't tell me it's for academic purposes for it's not.

...

Uh... ohkay.
You know what, you win, I'll stop the rant there's no point.
I'll sue if I need to.
Let's go with the flow.

...

After all, what do I care.
Unless they ask WW for the logged IPs, track them back to the networks, and ask for the *cough* network logs to match the proxy and dynamic IP addresses up with...

...my *expired* non-existent account ( DSL contract is from 1968! *haha* ) at a now non-existent ISP... well, I think I can conclude I'm safe.

...

Webwork

WebmasterWorld Administrator webwork us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 7:11 pm on Oct 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Food for thought as we waltz along the path to Oz:

1. Social graph as in advertising (What I say about myself) or as in marketing (What "the market" is saying about me)? How will social graphing evolve: as biography or a autobiography? I doubt that social graph software will stop at autobiograpy, if for no other reason than people "just wanna know".

2. "Portable social graph" as in a persona inventory that follows us around the world, 24/7/365, for life? From high school to college to our first hometown and job, on ad infinitum?

I remember a time when leaving high school presented the possibility of a rebirth. Not as a fraud on one's past but as a second chance. A life was built upon life lessons and renewals. Rebranding, if you will.

Now what? A life of past lessons and biographical judgments, to follow one through life, as if an appendage, one's social graph?

Imagine parents talking to their children about how some event or action will follow them around for life in their social graph. Has anyone heard the phrase "helicopter parents"? Will social graphing feed into whatever that parenting phenomena is about? This is already happening, with parents discussing the ramifications of MySpace pages and other actions. The dialogue about social graphing will likely just add accelerant to the dialogue.

3. Perhaps social graphing isn't something to fear or sound alarms about. Maybe the social graphing stage is simply an evolutionary step on a path to a "new birth of self", a true enlightenment, where people aren't their history - their "social graph" - but, instead, people see one another as lifetimes of possibility? A world of real forgiveness, real grace, real humanness? A world within which a social graph is something other than a criminal record or a perfect report card?

Perhaps the "social graph" is simply a step in the evolution of "self" - in the struggle to align one's "sense of self" with a "culture of self" that supports the real-ization of that sense? Would it be natural, perhaps after some period of calamity and cataclysm, for humankind - in a globally social networked, social graphed and 24/7/365 "exposed world" - to take on a new definition of what it means to be a human being? Maybe it will be an evolutionary improvement? That would be nice. ;) The emergence of (a new social) empathy and grace would be adaptive in a social networked, social graphed world.

Or will the world simply become one giant glass house? No more enlightened, nor necessarily paranoid, just constrained by the certain knowledge that whatever one does or doesn't do is something that can be added - and perhaps never removed - from the undefined, emerging "social graph"?

Thanks to the WWW we are being thrust into an amazing social experiment, one that is likely to affect human relations and the interpretation of what it means to be human. It was my hope, from the outset, that the experiment would prove fruitful.

Will the social networked and graphed world be a world in which a man having a good time can dress up in a woman's dress - for the whole world to see - and still manage to rise to heights unique in the corporate world? Early results appear to support that inference. I guess we all get that way sometimes.

If the same man was photographed kicking his dog or hitting his child would the outcome be the same? What if it was on 2 separate occassions? Life over? Possibilities shrink to oblivion? Time to update the social graph a certificate from an anger management class?

Interesting times, just ahead. Fasten your seatbelts. :)

[edited by: Webwork at 8:07 pm (utc) on Oct. 13, 2007]

kapow

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 7:15 pm on Oct 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

This could be incredibly good or incredibly bad. It depends which side of a delicate balance google's plans end up on.
Good example: A system that channels online trust e.g. this site has a trust rating of X because this vast group rate it.
Bad example: A system that snoops and shares information about me with other systems (promoted as a service of course). Used initially for Ads, Then for corporate 'assessment', then for government surveilance.

A popular defence of big surveilance is: "If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear". That would be true if major organizations and those in power could demonstrate the following were a thing of the past: Prejudice, Corruption, Greed, Unfairness, Human error, Leaks, etc... In the world of big organizations and those in power: New mistakes, corruption, and inappropriate affiliation continue to come to light; which is a good reason to be wary of developments that erode privacy.

However we don't know what Google are planning, lets hope its something liberating.

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 9:33 pm on Oct 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

This might be a good time to mention Sascha Segan's column in the newest issue of PC Magazine. It's called "On the Web: Less Anonymity, More Privacy." [pcmag.com] (It's a two-page column, so click "next" at the bottom of the first page.) Key quote: "...you may have a false anonymity, but you have no privacy—-not from Google's database of Web searches, private addresses, and phone numbers, nor from goverment agencies' searches of your ISP's records. ... You may think you can pretend to be somebody else on the Internet, but the Department of Homeland Security doesn't see the distinction between you and your cyber-self."

Miamacs

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 12:46 am on Oct 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

...

Uh, yeah well, EFV, I'm not sure if I understand the timing of this quote right, but let me asnwer this way. There are a lot of things inbetween cybercrime and being targeted by cybercrime.

Some of the people in the 'gray' zone are called providers, going to any length, sometimes almost illegal ( = legal, right? ) to make money off the Internet. If they're big enough, they'll be writing the law. Google is one of them. Another, even larger percentage of these people -- neither criminals nor victims -- are called *users* and I'm one of them. I can't rely on the FBI to keep businesses from using my data in their barely legal way, so I'm using all means to protect myself from being targeted. I know I'm not *invisible* ...neither pretend to be, I'm just hard to target or build a marketing profile of. ( me = low ROI ) Neither do I have any personal information on the net... perhaps because I know the industry a bit too well.

...

As for what I'm trying to hide? Nothing. Yes, I have nothing to hide, I just don't like to feel as if I was walking naked on the main street of Planet Earth while browsing the net.

As for what I'm NOT trying to hide... My websites. I use Analytics, GWT, Gmail for work, I may be doing some acrobatic moves while marketing but nothing unethical. Oh and please don't make it sound like I'm a criminal either. I don't mind them knowing, in fact I want them to know.

About the websites that is.

Not me.

The websites. Businesses, information that were meant to be seen.
Services, articles, essays, forum posts I can live with, photos uploaded to be shared with friends, the community, then used in an Australian poster campaign without me knowing, if possible.

Oh, I've got all the family online btw., shops, retail, education, all kinds of stuff.
( just like others, except I'm the missing link not the hub )

I want them to know about my cousin's website too.
And I want them to know about my other cousin's website as well.

...

And not analize their personal information, or social ties.

...

Huh? Then why is the data available on the Internet?

You know... I understand that the technology is the same for taking photos of a storefront vs through someone's bedroom window, yet I think these two are pretty different - even if both face the street and are 'available' to be looked at. As being moderately familiar with these things called human beings - that's the humble opinion I developed throughout the years.

It's the *little* differences, understanding things such as the delicate concepts of 'shame', 'sexual offence' ( social networking sites? yeah, then sexual abuse as well ), 'fraud', 'stalking'... that keep human beings from taking photos through the bedroom windows. And worthy of being called a member of the same race, or... okay, perhaps only the same culture.

I applaud Google for being ABLE to "take photos of us in our sleep", but I'd like them not to do it.
And if needed, I'd like people with influence on them to ask them to leave us alone as well.
Even if they'd "edit the faces out", or "retouch a hundred or so such photos" - layered onto each other - to see the 'average sleeping position'. Then sell the info to "mattress makers" for the greater good of advancing on "backpain research".
( sorry Webwork I just don't believe in that. Although, amen to your post... it was almost like a prayer ).
I hope they know better than to even *try*.
I suppose they haven't, as of yet.

...

Come on if something isn't NAILED to the floor, does that mean you can take it? ( Nails at your disposal: noindex, nofollow, noarchive, noodp, noyahoodir, nosocgraph )

They should know of these aspects.
I bet they do.
I wonder if they think they can guard and use *any* data in such a fair way that they can convince everyone of their good intent.
I bet they do (think so).

JS_Harris

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 1:32 pm on Oct 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

We can read the brand name on a cigarette butt that started a massive forest fire. Thanks Google earth.

We can see inside our neighbors windows from the street out front without visiting. Thanks Google Streets.

We can know our credit scores instantly, from companies who charge us for the priveledge no less, because they keep files on us all.

We can see through buildings and dirt to make sure pipelines aren't broken, not that it helps miners when they need it.

We can hear our cell phones ring if we get near enough to a store that is advertising localy, thanks web 2.0.

We'll do this on many planets soon enough, thanks nasa and space privateers (Richard Garriot is my hero anyway).

Our governments are doing things we couldn't imagine, all for our benefit of course, but at who's expense... our kids?

This list goes on. The one thing we no longer have is control on our privacy. Companies politely pretend not to know much about us, yet they pay dearly to know everything.

If Google has plans for social networking it had better be a new product, not just what we already have under different non google brands. I supose my only point with this post is to say that we're watching back. If one day the internet is simply shut off because someone decides it's best for mankind... I may agree.

m0thman

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 10:35 pm on Oct 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

This is just one more reason why I block ads and cookies in web pages, have my email client set to not download remote images, and don't log-in to Google except when I have to (say, for Adwords) then log-out before browsing.
I turn on cookies selectively for sites that need them that I can't live without. And there's a handy little icon in my email client to download remote images individually on messages when I want to see them.

More and more people will be taking these steps to protect their privacy. Google is shooting themselves in the foot, IMO. But, again, the whole industry is by being over-aggressive trying to connect the dots.

Unfortunately, it's a race to the bottom.

This made me smile... And just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you!

dailypress

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3475855 posted 5:41 pm on Oct 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Doesnt google already own Orkut.com a social networking website?

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved