5 replies to this topic

[eKstreme]

I just finished reading an interview on Wired with Eric Schmidt, and two bits really irked me:

What does it take to improve the quality of ads on Google?

More computers, basically, and better algorithms. And more information about you. The more personal information you're willing to give us - and you have to choose to give it to us - the more we can target. The standard example is: When you say "hot dog," are you referring to the food, or is your dog hot? So the more personalized the information, the better the targeting.

He goes on to talk about G Analytics and some cool work there, but this is yet another demonstration of how invading Google's personalization can be.

The next question's answer is also good, with this little gem:

Now, let's look at television. Every one of the next generation of cable set-top boxes is going to get upgraded to an IP-addressable set-top box. So all of a sudden, that set-top box is a computer that we can talk to. We can't tell whether it's the daughter or the son or the husband or the wife in a household. All we know is we're just talking to the television. But that's pretty targetable because family buying patterns are pretty predictable, and you can see what programs they're watching. And if you're watching a YouTube video, we know you're watching that video.

I'm sorry, but what I watch on TV is no one's business, especially someone out to peddle more stuff to me. No one should be allowed to talk to my TV except my cable company and my remote control.

So am I the only one who's worried about the future Google is forcing upon us? If you're not worried, why not?

Pierre

[bwelford]

I feel the same but for slightly different reasons, Pierre. Google like many other smart, arrogant companies thinks it knows what's best for its customers. They're intensely product-driven and as the Googlers all talk among themselves they produce some pretty good products. However they don't get out often enough.

What they're missing out on is the whole customer-centric view that customers want to decide what's best for them. Customers want to be in control. That started with such phenomena as the ClueTrain Manifesto back in 1999 but it was the way the world was turning even before that. Now that process is going full belt with Social Media, Web 2.0, etc. Google should really factor this reality into its strategic planning. That includes working in such a way that they don't alienate potential customers such as you, Pierre.

I'm not worried for you and me. I think Google should be worried for itself. It won't do as well as it should if it's living in its own fool's paradise.

[ukdaz]

I think in today's fast paced "gimme gimme gimme" world most people are beyond caring...

The amount of ignorance and "I'm not doing anything wrong so why do I care if I am tracked 24/7?" I find from many of my family and friends about the way we all be monitored is likely going to make it very easy for Google to eventually see what ever it wants of its users...

And the way our society is going where we all be "monitored" by CCTV, giving away our movements, shopping habits, location etc will likely just make us hugely complacent in letting Google doing want it wants.

Daz

Edited by ukdaz, 11 April 2007 - 11:08 AM.

[Ruud]

So am I the only one who's worried about the future Google is forcing upon us? If you're not worried, why not?

Yes and no.

I grew up with the believe that one day no-one will be able to trade except when meeting certain specific requirements. That was in a time and age when everything was done in cash. Debit cards weren't there yet. The idea of electronic money transfers was ... well, far-fetched. The whole idea that one could control trade itself was outlandish.

Back then it simply seemed impossible that huge amount of data could be cross-referenced in so many ways. Sure, the tax office did it sometimes but it took them ages. Everything was on paper or micro-fiche.

The digital age has made it possible to store, retrieve and cross-reference those huge amounts of data. As always, this can be for the good or for the bad. Use data sniffing to catch a band of online perverts: good. Use data sniffing to scan everyone's conversations: bad or at the very least against the constitution of the country/countries most of us live in.

So as you see, what Google does and plans to do for me is not so much a case of Google forcing a certain future upon us; Google itself is part of that very future.

Remove Google from the picture and you still have ISP's selling clickstreams to marketers, right?

Does it worry me?

Well, on a large "what the future may hold" type of scale: no. For obvious reasons, I hope. I hold a certain set of beliefs, as may be considered known, which removes the need for me to fear or be dismayed.

What does worry me in the picture:

• All this data goes (mainly) to Google at the moment. I feel better when their monopoly is less strong, less all-encompassing.
• All this data goes (mainly) unknown to (mainly) Google. The majority of people around me are not aware that their data is being collected. When they do, they don't care.
• All this data goes (mainly) unchecked to (mainly) Google. What can and cannot be done with this type of data, how it should be stored and protected, how long it can be kept -- this should be the matter of an authoritative body to decide. Before toying around in the margin with double opt-in digitial ID sender verification spam regulation (which spammers do not subscribe to...) let's figure out the big stuff.

Watergate took a physical crime. What checks are in place to ensure the White House clickstreams aren't bundled, aggregated and sold to a political party/publisher/enemy?

[SEOigloo]

This is an imporant topic, Pierre. Thank you for talking about this.

What they're missing out on is the whole customer-centric view that customers want to decide what's best for them. Customers want to be in control.

I agree, Barry. Well said. From a consumer's standpoint, this, to me, is the whole issue.

What checks are in place to ensure the White House clickstreams aren't bundled, aggregated and sold to a political party/publisher/enemy?

Ruud, yes, yes. From a world citizen's standpoint, this completely freaks me out. It's all very nice if the friendly geeks at Google have this information because they want to deliver us personalized ads. What is our government doing with it? And how about the governments of other countries? Do I want such and such dictator of X country to know who I am?

Scary stuff, fellows.
Miriam

[bobbb]

Because the honeymoon is not over! Google is still enjoying it's rock star like status and "can do no wrong" much like a young nerd in the mid 80's that beat Big Blue at its game. Then, he too could do no wrong.

To those naive people who say

"I'm not doing anything wrong so why do I care if I am tracked 24/7?"

The answer is because someone wants to know. If you are doing nothing wrong why do they want to know (what you are doing). The person that wants that information or has that information is dangerous because we know that eventually it will be mis-used. Massaged information can be made to say anything.

Two examples of total information control: one positive and one negative.

Given today's technology how long do you think it would have taken authorities to quash the rebels and "traitors" in the year 1776.

In the mid 30's of the last century a certain dictator has all the info that we now have at his finger tips. Wikipedia puts the number at between 9 to 11 million. How high do we suppose the number would be? 20 to 25 million? And he just might have won.

Yes, scary stuff