By allowing Google to track my web browsing, Google becomes a more effective knowledge management platform.

Privacy International lodged a complaint with a number of privacy regulators around the world about targeted advertising in Gmail.

Official Google Blog: Google search privacy: Plain and simple

Search queries saved in logs: Misspelled search terms, prompts for “did you mean”.

IP address: Search results returned to the correct computer. Can tell which provider and general location.

Cookies: Small file stored on computer. Reminds of preferences from last time. Search results per pages and language preference

Log of visit: Receipt of visit. Search term, IP address, cookie ID, browser version, operating system, date and time of search.

Some parts of IP address and cookie will be deleted after 18 months.

De Landa proposes the concept of the Panspectron (p. 206). Whilst referring to Bentham’s Panopticon, which is he points out, a powerful tool for political and societal control through the perception of continuous surveillance, he suggest the Panspectron gathers all the available information about all subjects all of the time. Through a systems of filters and key word matching matters of interest are identified and this results in the subject being brought into focus.

Put this in a modern context and we have the system of robots (bots) employed by search engines that continually search the internet, reporting their findings of information and information linkages back to central points. Data is then analysed through a system of algorithms, such as Google’s Page Rank system and this results in the searches we use today. It’s only when someone searches (employees the Panspectron’s keywords and filters) does the relevant data appear.

A quick post to a piece on the Google Public Policy blog from Peter Fleischer about Google and the EU policy on data retention. Will probably be worth coming back to this one.

Google Public Policy Blog: Data retention: the right balance between privacy and security:

“Citizens should have a right to privacy online. And governments have an obligation to keep their citizens safe. Finding the right balance between privacy and security is a delicate balancing act. Europe’s recent experience with data retention holds interesting lessons for everyone concerned with this balance.”

Are individual privacy rights at greater risk as a result of Google’s privacy practices?

I found this on Peter Fleischer’s blog. It’s Eric Scmidt, CEO of Google, urging the nations of the world to adopt new privacy regulations. Although it sounds good in theory, the cynic in me believes that it’s a diversionary tactic to take attention away from the Google/DoubleClick deal. The comment by Anne Cavoukian tends to reinforce this thought. Ms Cavoukian suggests Google adopts a set of privacy standards her organisation has already developed.

Google wants to get to know you – more. Although widely critised for their privacy policies, including a stinging rebuke from Privacy International, Google is mounting a PR campaign of epic proportions to convince web surfers, legislators, and the public in general that the world will be a better place by the search giant knowing even more details about our lives.

As as has been reported here previously, Google is currently in negotiations with the FTC and EEC to seek approval for their USD$3.1 billion (yes, that is a lot of money)
purchase of online advertising agency DoubleClick. Their strategy is simple. Google already dominates the search advertising market with their USD$10.6 billion dollar revenue stream continuing to grow on the back of their highly successful Adsense advertising programme – Adsense places advertisements onto web pages based on the page’s content. But as much as that is an ingenious, and clearly lucrative marketing strategy, Google knows little about the interests of web surfers in general. And that’s where the powerplay of the DoubleClick purchase begins. Doubleclick is the master of the online advertising world; there’s hardly a major brand who hasn’t used the company to design an online campaign. And the reason for their success is that they’re clever, very clever. Utilising an intricate system of advertisements, cookies, and other tricks of the trade, DoubleClick can track the movements of web surfers as they travel from site to site. From this tracking, surveillance, and recording, DoubleClick has amassed profiles of consumers to the point where they are now able to deliver tailored web advertising to a web surfer based on their surfing habits. And it is this asset that has Google so interested. By combining there immense power in search, with DoubleClick’s strength in digital advertising, Google will have completed an amazing metamorphosis from garage-incubated hatchling, to online privacy monster in just 10 short years.

Clearly, there are significant concerns about the power Google will have at its disposal, particularly as that power translates into potential breaches of individual privacy. After all, Google/DoubleClick will have the resources, based on the combination of search and browsing history, to predict and influence consumer behaviour in ways never before imagined. And it is these threats that have privacy advocacy groups clambering to be heard, and it is these capabilities that are seeing competitors, such as Yahoo and Microsoft running to the government accusing Google of being variously anti-competitive and a risk to individual privacy.

Google know there’s a lot at stake here. Knowing that better targeted advertising means more effective advertising, and more effective advertising means bigger advertising revenues, Google continues to pursue this deal vigorously. With some pundits expecting them to gain the required approvals for the deal, we could soon find that the “Do No Evil” enterprise knows much more about us than we might expect.

This post was originally on one of my class blogs.

Over at Loose Wire Blog, Jeremy Wagstaff lists all the possible private information that Google may know about us as a result of their acquisition of Jaiku, the micro-blogging platform. It’s a significant list and one that gives us pause for concern. However it may say much about attitudinal shifts in values that users of online services of all kinds, are giving away information that was previously considered private.

Privacy is all about self-disclosure and the control of access of others to our inner-self. It’s very possible that many of us no longer consider our mobile phone number, address, or the suburb in which we live, private information. After all these pieces of information are relatively easy to find out. Maybe we’ve made the assessment and believe that the rewards outweigh the risks. Or perhaps the Internet has seduced us into believing that we are far safer and far more protected than we really are. I suspect that the answer is a combination of both.

It never ceases to amaze me to see how much private information people are willing to give away on social networking sites such as Facebook. With Google’s purchase of Jaiku, they have all the ingredients of a powerful social network, much more powerful in my opinion than the others. The combination of search, gmail, maps, and now Jaiku provide Google with a unique and incredibly deep, understanding of who we are, what we’re doing, what interests us, and what we’re planning. And if Google complete the DoubleClick deal, who knows, perhaps the machine will tell us that we need a new pair of sneakers before we had a chance to give it a thought.

Speaking of which, mine are getting a bit old.

Matt Cutts, head of Google’s web spam team is not taking Privacy International’s accusation of poor privacy practices lying down. In a fiery and enthusiastic post on his private blog, Cutts claims that PI simply walked past companies that were handling privacy poorly, and focussed instead on a company that is doing something positive about the issue. However, Cutts tends to justify his position by pointing to companies that have done worse than Google as opposed to defending the accusations on their own merits, He cites, for example, the release by AOL of millions of raw search queries that lead to the identification of an AOL user. If this is the case, AOL indeed has some improvements to make, but their sloppiness does not make Google a model corporate citizen. And simply because Google is helping out young software programmers with real world experience, does not change the fact that Google’s software necessarily relies on significant and ongoing surveillance that must surely become more comprehensive as new and more personalised services are added.

Undoubtedly PI may have erred on the heavy-handed side when making their assessment of Google. In fact, their report stated that their findings would be seen as controversial. But Google is a big corporation and, rather then being thin-skinned and sensitive, would do well to take on board the concerns expressed in the report and work toward being extra-diligent in the handling of customers’ private information.