WSJ: Everyone Talks Facebook Privacy, but What About Google

[engine]

The Wall street journal has a piece which will probably get to more people than others, and it's raising the point that "we're" all talking about privacy on Facebook, following the Cambridge Analytica furore, but, Google is one of the biggest data harvesters. I think most of us knew that, so nothing new there. The main difference I see is that people actually put their information onto Facebook, whereas people use Google and it draws data from your mobiles, locations and search history, and most people aren't aware about how much goes on.
Perhaps the attention will eventually start to shift from FB to Google, and eventually, all data harvesters.

“There is a systemic problem and it’s not limited to Facebook,” says Arvind Narayanan, a computer scientist and assistant professor at Princeton University. The larger problem, he argues, is that the very business model of these companies is geared to privacy violation. We need to understand Google’s role in this. link [wsj.com]

[Travis]

And I guess that Google is also collecting data about people from web pages it crawls.

[tangor]

As more msm outlets report this, the more the public will push back. We are seeing some changes in how FB and G are doing things, but chrome on all those phones.... and the browser, too. :)

[keyplyr]

I think the world's major ISPs need to take a stand. They have all the power.

[seoyates]

Aren't ISPs the ones harvesting and re-selling data? Hitwise buy from ISP's right?

[Travis]

Aren't ISPs the ones harvesting and re-selling data? Hitwise buy from ISP's right?

May be in the USA, but I think that in Europe things are more strict, but I might be wrong.

I am sure that in the upcoming months/years, we'll learn plenty of things about what is done by whom :)

[robzilla]

Big data comes with big responsibilities, and while Google may be an even bigger collector of data, I think it's also the better protector of that data. I tend to trust them more than other companies, but that's just my personal view... there's no knowing what goes on behind closed doors.

[MrSavage]

The issue is what happens with the data. What's the ulterior motive. In Google's case, it used to be just ads. Fine. Now it's a wide range of products and services that know no bounds. Search and other products are data harvesters at this point. They can pretty much outdo anyone and any game regarding selling or knowing the consumer. They have A to Z so whatever they choose to crowd, they can certainly have insight into consumers like nobody else on the planet. Google is like Teflon Don. Who the F just said they trust one corporation more than others with their data when every corporation by law is required to seek profits? Nothing is done out of the goodness of the heart. To the OP, the reason for this effect? I would suggest like these forums, people are profiting thanks to what Google brings which in turn bring silence, complacency and defending. If Google is helping the big PR threats with copious amount of income then the need for those PR threats to speak out goes away. It's very basic. Just look at how views are shared around here. Most people/companies lack integrity to call something out for what it is. Money tends to do that.

[Shaddows]

An old member here, leosghost, used to compare Google to the Medieval Catholic Church (apologies for any offence I cause here).

Google is primarily interested in data for data's sake. But it's influence reaches further than it's own domain. As the Medieval Church shaped society beyond the spiritual sphere, so Google shapes the datasphere. As people referred to the Church for meaning, advice and enlightenment, so Google seeks to provide the same. And as the Priests gathered knowledge that allowed the clergy to have insight beyond the ken of your average (or even aristocratic) man, so the power of Google grows with each datum it acquires.

Google's main mis-step was Social Media, with the Church being the social centre of every community, something Google failed to replicate.

Now, the Church's animus was the glorification of God, Heaven on Earth, the saving of souls. Status and power was incidental, until it began to attract the type who seek and maximise such things; essentially a corruption of the original mission. But once those people were attracted, the tools and structure of the Church were great enablers to their worst instincts.

Here's where interesting comparisons turn into rampant speculation*.

Google's stated mission is the organisation of the world's data. Whereas the structure of the Church could be said to be incidental to their mission, the same structure is essential to Google. To wit, the centralised collection and processing of information from the entire spectrum of human life.

Google have shown no particular desire to sell that data, or access to the data, or insight from the data. Contrast with Facebook, for whom profit seems to be the very point.

Cash is just grist to the mill, it keeps everything ticking over. Make the cash, re-invest it in new data-gathering or data-processing capabilities. Doesn't matter if they turn a profit, as long as they collect meaningful data. Data not meaningful enough, shut it down. As long as some data can be turned into cash (via ads), and there is enough cash to develop new data sources, the machine keeps on growing.

Vaguely supported conclusion*: Their endgame is to run the world, under the aegis of their own value system.

Which is more malign, misuse of data in the pursuit of profit, or of unfettered power.

*Added to indicate this post it not entirely serious