Tag: google

Privacy-ish Concerns

This week, I paid a small fortune to have the instrument cluster replaced on my car, and the mechanic, sympathizing as I wincingly wrote out the check, said, “The days of mechanical failures are over.” By this he was of course referring to the reality that everything we depend on is supported by integrated electronics and computers, the downside of which is that failures are often systemic and expensive rather than isolated and cheap.  In fact, I can’t think of any repair to any machine in the last decade or more that hasn’t required replacement of a control panel, and it’s these delicate electronics that make even products we still call “durable goods” not so durable as they used to be.  Given all that and other considerations like privacy and security, is the proverbial “smart home” desirable?   Frankly, if my coffee maker, smoke alarm, fridge, television, and thermostat all start talking to one another (and a company like Google is listening), I’m never going to sleep soundly again.

With its 3.2 billion dollar acquisition of smart device maker Nest, Google is clearly poised to enter the home through portals other than the computer and mobile device.  As this article by Steven Rosenfeld on AlterNet.org describes, Google is fairly unapologetic about invading privacy as a for-profit venture, which makes the company’s public denouncements of the NSA more than a little hypocritical.  The article lists several ways in which Google has already violated user privacy, including its achieving the dubious honor of paying the highest civil fine ever ($22.5 million) to the FTC for bypassing user security settings in Apple’s Safari browser.  While the fine may be a record-breaker, it is likely dwarfed by the market value of the illicitly gained data Google was able to sell to advertisers. So, not an effective deterrent, then.

I’ve been called a privacy skeptic by commenters on this blog and in other places because I’ve stated that I’m not extraordinarily fussed about the Snowden revelations.  Let me try to clarify. I’m not extraordinarily fussed about the Snowden revelations in context to the larger picture.  I think the 4th Amendment should be defended, even if that defense is on principle alone; but in the case of domestic spying, I do believe we may be substantially more focused on principle and hypotheticals than on practical, day-to-day reality.  In reality, it is unclear yet whether or not the intelligence-gathering agencies have broken any laws or violated anyone’s rights. In reality, Americans polled on the issue are split right down the middle, which suggests there may be little change in policy no matter what.  In reality, most people who work at these agencies really are more interested in finding terrorists, human traffickers, and other criminals than in reading the content of our boring-ass emails during their lunch breaks.  In reality, the only entity that has been caught reading the content of our boring-ass emails is Google, and this includes not only Gmail users, but people who have corresponded with Gmail users.  In reality, if the intelligence gathering agencies really want the dope on any one of us, they need look no further than most of the stuff we voluntarily put out there through social media.  And finally, if intelligence gathering agencies want robust information, they’re going to get it from Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, DropBox, and Skype, all of which are named in the aforementioned article as supplying information to government agencies.

And this brings me to the latest email blast from the Electronic Frontier Foundation inviting users to an online protest on February 11th called The Day We Fight Back – Against Mass Surveillance.  Invoking the martyrdom of Aaron Swartz, the defeat of SOPA (again), and the disgruntlement with the NSA, the EFF wants us to raise the fists of solidarity against domestic spying.  And that’s fine, but where is there any mention of Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, DropBox, or Skype as targets of this day of protest?  There isn’t.  Instead, these corporate entities are being portrayed as first-tier victims of intelligence overreach, several issuing transparency reports as though to say, “Look at all the data we have on you the government made us give them!”  So, assuming we successfully reign in the intelligence community (or convince ourselves we can), are we still cool with all the for-profit data collection these companies are doing because it’s supposedly voluntary?  Are we okay with prospective employers or insurance underwriters judging us based on our search data or Facebook profiles?  Because that’s a lot more likely than the average citizen attracting the attention of an analyst at the NSA?

I’m all for holding government agencies accountable, but not if we’re simultaneously letting private industry off scott free.  After all, private industry is actually better at this domestic spying thing, and they have a profit motive, which I happen to think is a more realistic concern than the hypothetical analyst who just wants to pry because he’s a creep.  To debate and protest domestic surveillance without focusing on these private companies seems incomplete to say the least. So why isn’t the EFF more critical?

Here’s the thing that worries me more than anything an Edward Snowden could possibly reveal:  when corporate interests seek to drive a wedge between the public and their elected representatives, it’s often because those representatives are (as they are meant to be) a barrier between the public and whatever the corporate interests would like to do to the public.  And that’s what I believe is happening here.  I don’t think the EFF gives a damn about actual privacy, otherwise the aforementioned companies would be in their crosshairs for this protest on the 11th.  I think the EFF wants to capitalize on distrust in “the government” in the service of protecting the Internet industry’s interest in maintaining our trust in the almighty cloud.  After all, what could be worse for Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, DropBox, and Skype than if we all seriously began to care about privacy?

Tech 10 Outspend MPAA on Lobbying 30:1

I was recently on the lot at Warner Brothers in Burbank, and the movie studio has indeed undergone some major changes in response to threats from the Internet industry.  What used to be a marketing department has been transformed into a cubicle farm now known on the QT as the Department for Breaking the Internet.  Similarly, the building where writers once banged out classic screenplays is now the Division for Chilling Free Speech.  And while there is only speculation that file sharers are being abducted and tortured, I was pretty sure I heard screams when a door swung open on a soundstage claiming to be home to the Ellen DeGeneres Show.

Meanwhile, back in reality . . .

You know how we still see headlines that tell us Hollywood and the Government are in cahoots to . . . (insert violation of civil liberty here)?  Well, you can feel secure calling bullshit on that premise at least insofar as lobbying dollars go because Hollywood is a penny-ante player in that game.  Despite the persistent notion that the almighty MPAA wields some unlimited lobbying budget with which it manhandles Washington, here’s the facts, Jack:  According to this report from Consumer Watchdog, 10 major tech firms spent $61.5 million on lobbying in 2013 with Google (who else?) leading that crowd with its own $14.06 million.  By contrast, the MPAA, whose budget comes from combined contributions from the major media companies, spent a little under $2.2 million in 2013 according to the Lobbying Disclosure site hosted by the US House of Representatives.  That’s a 30:1 ratio for the 10 firms v the MPAA, or a 7:1 ratio looking just at Google v the MPAA.

So, sure we can have a big ol’ national palaver about the influence of money in politics, but anyone who thinks big tech is the David to the media industry’s Goliath is just a sucker.  Meanwhile, like them or not, what major motion picture studios spend their money on is film and television production.  Protecting IP and fighting piracy is a pain the ass and an expense to protect investments. By contrast, the lobbying dollars spent by many of these technology companies are an investment in rewriting policy — copyrights, patents, privacy, etc.  — that could have a dramatic effect on their future growth.  This is one reason we’re not likely to see the MPAA ever compete on a level, lobbying playing field, even if they had the financial resources to do so.  At the same time, the major studios and networks combined employ more Americans than Google, and even all those jobs still don’t represent the majority of people who work in the motion picture industry.  So, really the whole narrative of Silicon Valley as underdog is multi-dimensionally false as well as insulting.

Google Can Bite Me

If we’re not supposed to shoot the messenger for bad news, neither are we supposed to give him credit for the message when it’s good news.  As the two-year anniversary of the defeat of SOPA approaches, the folks at Google not only want you to remember the date, but they want to double-down on their arrogance and take more than a little credit for preserving creativity itself.  This is certainly consistent with the recent Google/New Year’s TV spot — and admittedly it’s the one I’d produce — that depicts scene after scene of people all over the world doing extraordinary things, mostly captured in videos we can watch on YouTube. And it’s good marketing to align one’s brand with great acts of charity, kindness, and ingenuity, but it’s also just a little bit bullshit, no?  I mean if Google consistently states that its platforms are just a neutral highway, and we can’t blame that highway for any of the trash, theft, or promotion of criminal activity we find on it, then certainly the same neutral highway doesn’t get credit for creating or accomplishing the good stuff, right?  Surely that’s fair. Not if you want to be the landlord of the digital future and also have the serfs thank you for the privilege of their humble residence, it seems.

Never wanting to lose an opportunity to be bizarrely two-faced, Google is sending around a little graphic today to all you GMail users implying that stopping SOPA in January of 2012 actually enabled creativity to continue to thrive on the Web. Never mind that nothing in SOPA could have stopped you or me or any other would-be creator from uploading our works, ideas, or captured events to the Web; that’s just pesky reality.  But Google isn’t satisfied just to effect public policy in its own interests, it also wants to behave like the abusive and negligent father, who creepily shows up with a smile and a hug when his kid wins an award or becomes famous.  After all, this week isn’t just the anniversary of SOPA Blackout Day, it’s also the week Google received its 100 millionth takedown notice from recording artists who would rather not have their works exploited without permission or compensation.  So, the whole, “we protected creativity together” message just kinda makes the skin crawl.  Y’know?

Believe what you want about SOPA Blackout Day.  Propose it as a national holiday, and watch what happens when the majority of American adults ask, “What’s SOPA?” But while Google wants us to mark the day with reverence and forget what a boon it was to their $300+ billion market cap, we should remember also that these web companies don’t create artists, human rights activists, social reformers, great athletes, virtuoso performers, or just cool kids who do things that rekindle our faith in human capacity.  At best, these companies build tools that enable us to more easily see and share all this activity with one another, and it’s no trivial thing; but it’s important to maintain perspective as to whether we need these companies or they need us.

ADDENDUM:  On a related theme, Justin Moyer asks interesting questions about those Google Doodles.  See story in Washington Post.