Forum Moderators: goodroi
Google has been accused of "hypocrisy" over its stance on personal privacy.In court documents defending a lawsuit brought against its Street View mapping tool it has asserted that "complete privacy doesn't exist."
But, points out the US National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) it responded to a Californian politician's concerns about its growth by saying that it "takes privacy very seriously".
"Google's hypocrisy is breathtaking," said Ken Boehm, chairman of the NLPC.
Google is sharing information that's freely available to the public
Well, I think it depends on your point of view.
Until now, a lot of information was freely available IF YOU MADE THE EFFORT TO SHOW UP PERSONALLY. Which was a major blocking point for most of us. So most people shrugged and went on.
With Google it's way easier. All of a sudden the information is indeed freely available to anyone who is on the internet. So, on any day there may be 100s or 10,000s of people lurking into your backyard, and you are not aware of it. You don't know who watches you, when, or why. Which is way different than the occasional pedestrian.
Of course is the satellite view and street view a massive invasion of the privacy. And there is not even a NEED for it.
GSV's usefulness
In the past, your daughter and her husband would have spent a day or two checking thesuitablity of the area they intend to relocate to. Or they may have asked in forums. Or friends who know the city. Or maybe even the real estate agent. Is it really necessary to strategically invade the privacy of many millions to make relocating easier for a handful of people?
But yeah, I love Google, too.
Convenience is just a fact, you are not born with the right to have convenience and nobody needs to protect your rights to convenience. Mine and your rights to Life, Democracy, Equality, Privacy, are basic Human Right and they must be protected by law no matter what.
Now Google does not have any mandate to violate my privacy. Privacy is a personal right, in order to violate my privacy right you need my consent, on each individual violation case. Like your neighbor is asking: Hey can I see your backyard, your answer is yes. Now two days later he comes back to see your backyard, he needs again your consent.
I think the whole confusion is: if is good and convenient it must be right and the answer is NO.
Google is sharing information that's freely available to the public.
He will have to be, won't he? ;)
When NSA is spying on me is because I gave them a mandate.
You did? I certainly didn't. I'd much rather have Google show a photo of my street address than have the NSA riffling through my Internet data packets (and I'd add that it's specious to equate the two).
So, on any day there may be 100s or 10,000s of people lurking into your backyard, and you are not aware of it.
Well, maybe if you live in the White House or you're Tom Cruise (in which case you're probably more annoyed by the paparazzi than by Google Street View).
How about a Job interview. You give the address and the future employer has a peek to your house. The grass is yellow and the front is a mess. His conclusion, I can shave 5%, he must be really motivated to get the Job. Guess what he is right.
He could do that anyway by driving by and looking. Street view doesn't give him access to anything he didn't already have.
That's why I say there is no privacy issue. If you give someone your address, they can drive by your house and look at it. They can look up how much you owe on your mortgage at the county property appraiser's website, all kinds of stuff. If you don't want people to see or know where you live, don't give out your address. It's really just that simple. Google may have "simplified" one's access, but they didn't grant anything.
How about a Job interview. You give the address and the future employer has a peek to your house. The grass is yellow and the front is a mess.
How about a job interview where the prospective employer looks you [a hypothetical you, in this case] up in a Web search engine and finds:
- A blog post by your ex-wife that says you're a drunk and a wife-beater who's lousy in bed;
- A social-networking page where your old frat-rat buddy from college describes how you and he dressed up as Bette Midler and Liza Minelli at the Class of 1978's Transvestite Nite Ball;
- A crackpot letter to the editor of your local newspaper that you wrote after an afternoon of listening to talk radio;
- The fact that you were arrested for DUI in 2005.
And you're worried that the prospective employer will be offended by the condition of your lawn in a Google Street View photo? :-)
BTW, it's worth pointing out that aerial photos of neighborhoods (and street-level photos of dwellings, in some cases) have been available from government, academic, and other Web sites for quite a while. (And on CD-ROM too, for that matter.)
He could do that anyway by driving by and looking. Street view doesn't give him access to anything he didn't already have.
This is not a good argument. He would not do that if you lived 30 miles away in an unfamiliar neighbourhood. Google facilitates this.
This is not a good argument. He would not do that if you lived 30 miles away in an unfamiliar neighbourhood. Google facilitates this.
Technology facilitates this. Google Street View is merely one implementation of technology that allows ordinary people (not just governments or corporations) to view photos of buildings and other locations from afar.
Face it: We're living in the 21st Century, and technology marches on.
If this is what you are looking for then I suggest you write your Congressmen to petition them to station militia at every street intersection and only allow those through with the proper clearance. Maybe some of y'all live in nice neighbourhoods with caring and careful neighbours, but most of us are pretty screwed in that department as is. If someone was snooping around my house, my neighbours, as nice as they are, are usually too busy to take notice, and they may not think anything of it even if they did.
Webwork - Terrible things happen in this world and terrible things will always happen. The means by which criminals operate will not affect the number of criminals, nor will blocking their means prevent them from acting; they will always find another means. As john said, the information being provided for Google was available by other means to joe schmoe.
It's sad; a friend of mine was raped, so I can understand the fear things like this generate. I also understand people, however, and this technology can only alter the means by which criminals operate, not whether or not they will operate. If this is such a major issue for you I suggest you start petitioning against shows like CSI, which show off the methods by which our Police forces catch criminals, and thereby (inadvertently) the means to elude identification and capture.
A person is not a criminal until they have commited a crime, and we need to focus on capturing them so they cannot act again, not on destroying just one of the many, many methods they use to operate.
As for Alex and your "privacy concerns," I think you should be a bit more disconcerted about the NSA's illegal wiretapping program than Google's street view. Many U.S. citizens and innocent foreigners have been imprisoned and tortured thanks to that program, and we have the fearful (like yourself) to thank for that. Benjamin Franklin once said that those who would give up a little Essential Freedom for a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Freedom nor Safety. And I'm sorry, but until Google starts offering Hallway View they are not infringing on our Liberties.
Your personal information is safe and secure until you give it out. Nobody knows who's living in that house based only on street view.
Benjamin Franklin once said that those who would give up a little Essential Freedom for a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Freedom nor Safety.
npwsol on this I have to agree with you. Never give up your basic human rights, even if the price is Safety. Even more foolish, giving up your Privacy & Freedom for the convenience or commercial benefit of a third party.
Your personal information is safe and secure until you give it out. Nobody knows who's living in that house based only on street view.
On this I strongly disagree, this information is not available today on Google Street View but is just one click away, in other applications.
I would like to make a point about data bases, and data aggregation.
11 Charged in Theft of 40 Million Card NumbersBOSTON — The Justice Department said on Tuesday that it had charged 11 people in the theft of tens of millions of credit and debit card numbers of customers shopping at major retailers, including TJX Companies, in one of the largest reported identity-theft incidents on record.
The United States Attorney in Boston said those charged were involved in the theft of more than 40 million credit and debit card numbers.
TJX, of Framingham, Mass., which owns the Marshall’s and TJ Maxx chains, was the hardest hit by the ring, acknowledging in March 2007 that information from 45.7 million credit cards was stolen from its computers.
The charges focus on three people from the United States, three from the Ukraine, two from China, one from Estonia and one from Belarus.
Also few days ago it was another article regarding some contractors/employees for a major lender selling 2 million ID (Name, address, Social Security, Job, Income ...) for 2 Cents a record. I hope you understand my concern regarding data aggregation. In my humble opinion all the records should be erased after successful or unsuccessful use.
Imagine you are an emigrant from previous Soviet Union (it can be any other county), you still have family in Russia. In fact your son spends few months with grandparents. Every few weeks the grandparents are sending you a letter with few pictures. This letter is stolen by a criminal gang in Russia. A peek on Street View shows you are successful, nice house and a Lexus on the driveway. How comfortable do you feel about the safety of your son?
Wait, they can just take a jet, have a look, come back and plan their crime. Street View will not help them for this crime.
I have to admit this is a heck of a sick scenario and I really hope, all of you will prove me wrong.
Wait now I know how I come with this story, it was in fact a real story in Los Angeles in the 90, on trueTV. Some criminals from Russia were targeting for extortion Russian emigrants with valuable Real Estate. I know at the time it was much more difficult without all the information available online. How far we are today, they do not need to sweet.
If the holders of those 40 million cards opted to pay with Cash instead we'd have a very different story. Once again, these people put themselves at risk. Maybe companies should erase credit/debit card numbers, and maybe you should suck it up and walk to the ATM.
Google is far less likely to get hacked than TJX is. Why? Because Google is a company chocked full of intelligent computer engineers who know how to secure this stuff. They also have a half million servers throughout the world and their own APIs for accessing the data (patented system and all). We're not talking about hacking Windows here. Can't really get at that data too easily unless you're an insider, and I'm sure Google watches the ones who interact with that data like hawks.
And no, it was not that difficult back then, either. They could have called a credit agency (posing as a prospective employer or lender from a public telephone) to get a good idea of their worth. They could have had contacts in the area who could find out for them. There are always methods available. Just because you or I don't think of them doesn't mean that a career criminal won't either.
How do you think they did it to begin with? Like I said, it is a sick thing to have to admit but these things HAPPEN, these things HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THE DAWN OF SOCIETY, and they will CONTINUE TO HAPPEN regardless of the technology available. Criminals are criminals and they are not likely to be stopped "because it is too hard to find this information out!"
Thanks, Ratel, I rather like the French method of handling it. Google would probably rather avoid the costs of implementing it, but it alerts the individual and leaves it to them to protect their privacy, as it should be.
[scmagazineuk.com...]
A lot of data theft cases are perpetrated by insiders. All the guys at Google can't stop an unhappy employee leaving with a CDROM full of relevant data. Or even worst giving the algorithms to access this data.
Put a million dollar on the table and you will have plenty of takers. In 2001 Robert Philip Hanssen former FBI agent was caught and convicted of spying for 1.4 million. Take an engineer in another country where data theft is maybe few months in prison, put on the table 1 Million. Let me know how is going.
Look at my second data theft example, an employee/contractor sold 2 million records for 2 cents a record. This is how much it is worth your Social Security, address...
There is only one solution stop data aggregation, clean the caches every 24 hours or don’t even store the data. I am not interested in getting relevant ads based on my medical history or my surfing habits. Today I get relevant ads based on my surfing habits, tomorrow I get fired from a job or I go to prison based on what blogs I read/write or what comments I make.
We live in a time when technology makes it a breeze to spy on millions of people. Location based on mobile phone, political convictions based on surfing habits, medical problems by reading the files. Who guarantee all this information will not be used to discriminate or even worst limit freedom.
Google is bidding on radio spectrum, Google phone (location, packet sniffing, voice to text). Behavioral adverts (years of relevant surfing information), storage of health records (since when search engines are using medical records). Street View today in very low resolution, but on their servers is full blown resolution. Next step DNA information storage and mining.
Hello, this is crazy, it has to stop.
George Orwell at his best.
Once again, your medical records are not being grabbed by Google unless you explicitly sign up for that service. It's not even attached by default like Web History was (which you can more than easily turn off, too).
Yes, Data Aggregation can be dangerous, so stop giving your data away.
Google's data centers are, and I'm fairly positive of this, extremely secure facilities which require clearance to check in and out of. When you check in and out of a secure facility, you have the capacity to check to make sure the people aren't taking things like CDs or thumb drives with them. Is this perfect? No, as I say, if there is a will there is a way, but I think Google is a bit more qualified to make sure this information is secure than TJX or realtors are.
Don't forget that we're not talking about hacking Windows here to get at Google's data. They have their own system designed (and patented) to store this data, which means that if you want it in a readable format you need to decode it.
And the information Google is storing is not information that you go after. They are not storing your personal information unless you sign up for a service that requires it.
If you're working with a realty company and they need to check your information, ask them about the measures they take to make sure it's safe. Be proactive. If you are concerned that they don't do enough to secure your information, or if you want them to trash it, tell them you will not do business with them unless they do. This is how a free market works. You have a need, and there's MANY people competing for your business. You'll either find what you want somewhere or give someone the idea. With enough demand this will come about.
Worried about being found because of your phone? Don't buy one with GPS. Worried about someone determining your polical convictions? Keep your online self separate from your real world self, or don't post on political blogs! Worried about your medical records being found? Don't; only authorized people can get at those to begin with. Yeah, employees, blah blah blah, but the security restrictions on that information are extreme.
You and I are making that guarantee; by refusing to interact with companies who's data aggregation, storage or security are not up to snuff, we force them to adapt.
Google is bidding on the radio spectrum to provide free wireless internet access throughout the country.
Their phone? Don't get one with GPS, or just don't get their phone. I don't see the problem with Voice to Text.
Behavioral advertising? No, that's NebuAd and Phorm, who want to install wiretaps at the ISP level. THAT'S a serious violation of privacy, because it gives your information to a third party who has nothing to do with the service you're using. Google's advertising is CONTEXTUAL advertising. You write a search query, it decides what ads are relevant and displays them. I.E., if you searched for "New York Knicks," you might see ads for sports gear, because based on what people have searched for and found for that term (using Google's services), they can associate the query with basketball.
Health records? Once again, you must sign up for this service before they will attempt to access your medical records. The information on file for this is not used in advertising or improving their search results. It's a service they're offering because, let's face it, it's not easy to get your medical records together, and sometimes you need to. It's also a service I'm not signing up for any time soon, and you don't have to either.
Street view, as we've already discussed, is perfectly legal so long as they stick to public roadways. It's a service that was available beforehand, as signor_john pointed out. As I pointed out (probably others too), no one will know what house is yours unless you publish that information publicly (or hand it to them).
Your privacy is your responsibility, and you have the power to do decide with whom you do business.
We are in a new era of Digital Age Wild West, new laws have to be put in place, and the Congress should start working on this. The main problem is most of Congressman’s do not have a clue about this, and there is also a lot of lobbying in Washington not to do anything.
Contacting your senator or congressmen regarding all this privacy issue is a great starting point.
[edited by: AlexBroker at 5:24 pm (utc) on Aug. 7, 2008]
