Google might as well run for president. With just two of its more than 100 services and products, the goliath of a company controls our ability to locate information and communicate with others. It’s taken over YouTube, has satellite images of our homes and is looking to dominate social networking with Google+.
Today, a new privacy policy goes into effect allowing the company to combine the enormous amount of personal information it collects from users across all its platforms and use it pretty much any way it wants.
I have a few issues with these new lack-of-privacy settings, primarily that yesterday was the deadline for users to take control of their information. If you haven’t already deleted your data history or opted out of the new policy, you’re out of luck. Users will probably feel they should have the option to do so in the future, but Google doesn’t see it that way.
So far, executives haven’t been swayed by international backlash. They know their products are ubiquitous in the online world and essential to people’s lives, making it difficult for users to extract themselves. Google can rely on the fact most people will prefer to hand over the reins than disrupt so much of their established online activity.
To be fair, though, Google did tell users in advance. Little banners mentioning new privacy settings popped up on our screens months ago. We just didn’t pay any attention, because it was far too easy to “dismiss” the annoyance rather than “learn more” about how our private information would be used to make other people money. Google says this umbrella policy will provide a “beautifully simple and intuitive” experience by streamlining the privacy settings for all its various products and services. While it’s appealing that I won’t have to adjust a million menus for every Google-run site, deciphering how exactly my information is used is not at all intuitive. The settings are more convenient, yes, but safer? More transparent? No.
Google and other companies already sell users’ info to facilitate audience-targeted marketing — it’s partially how they rake in profits. But Google collects a tremendous amount of those details: Where people live, what they search for, the stores they visit, who their friends are, the news they read, the routes they travel — the list goes on and on ad nauseum. When advertisers are armed with this extensive, highly detailed information accrued from all the Google-operated services, their influence will skyrocket.
Google also says the new policy will yield more “relevant” search results for each user, which could be useful when I search for Chinese restaurants and Google filters out places in Beijing if it knows I’m in Maryland. But this claim is flawed — relevance is a subjective criterion. I want to decide what results are best for my purpose, yet Google is asking us to defer judgment to — whom? A highly sophisticated algorithm-crunching robot?
More likely, third parties with their own interests will help determine what is “relevant” for us. Whichever companies or organizations cough up the most dough for data about our purchasing habits or frequently discussed topics could end up having their website appear first on the list.
Today, Google becomes the blabbermouth. That’s unsettling because it’s also been one of our top confidantes, whether we think of it that way or not. The company knows more about you than many of your friends, and it definitely has the best memory.
For marketers, all that data is pure gold. Google is the kid at the lunch table with Dunk-a-roos — the kind with sprinkles icing — and companies are the drooling classmates forking over entire meals to get their hands on ‘em.
So as Google willingly hands over our information, what does that make us in the cafeteria metaphor? We’re the sucker parents who don’t realize the true value of those little cookies. We consumers have tremendous potential to manipulate advertisers, but it’s the other way around because we don’t realize the value of our search histories, purchasing habits, email subscriptions — all the personal data we no longer own. Shouldn’t we wield that influence ourselves rather than let Google take it and run? It’s a complex issue, and in a 500-word column, I’ve likely oversimplified some pieces of the puzzle. I encourage you to research on your own, although I wonder how Google will choose to filter your results? I guess you could always Ask Jeeves.
Alissa Gulin is a senior journalism major and former opinion editor. She can be reached at gulin@umdbk.com.
