Google Apologizes Over Buzz Invasion

February 20, 2010

Attempting to stem the furor over Buzz, Google apologized to users for what many consider an invasion of privacy in their heavily criticized auto-follow feature represents in default mode. Just two days after Buzz launched, Google had to scramble and release its first major privacy update.

Speaking to the changes, Todd Jackson, product manager for Gmail and Google Buzz, said that instead of automatically connecting people, Buzz will in the future merely suggest to new users a group of people they may want to follow or be followed by.

What’s Buzz?

Buzz, if you haven’t heard of it, is Google’s attempt to take on Facebook, Twitter, and Friendfeed’s roles in social media, while strengthening its position as the default for all consumer interactions. Just as Microsoft bundled Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Access and Publisher back in 1994 to create a ‘productivity suite’ called Office, Buzz is Google’s attempt to bundle their standalone communication and sharing services including Gmail, Picasa, Flikr, Google Reader, and YouTube. The goal is to provide a more seamless experience for users that lock consumers into all their services rather than forfeiting customers to other standalone products.

So what’s the Privacy uproar about?

Until now, consumers could assume their Gmail emails were private – except for the data mining of your email that Google performs so they could target ads at you – but other than this, your emails were private. (Note: I find the invasion unacceptable and choose not to use Gmail for anything other than test purposes).

With the advent of Buzz, this assumption of privacy was trashed. Critics argue that Google’s decision to form social networks on e-mail and chat messages as is flawed because unlike social networks that make a person’s list of friends and followers public, Buzz also creates networks based on content found in e-mail conversations.

As Miguel Helft put it in his New York Times article “E-mail, it turns out, can hold many secrets, from the names of personal physicians and illicit lovers to the identities of whistle-blowers and antigovernment activists. And Google, so recently a hero to many people for threatening to leave China after hacking attempts against the Gmail accounts of human rights activists, now finds itself being pilloried as a clumsy violator of privacy.”

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group in Washington said, “E-mail is one of the few things that people understand to be private. People thought what they had was an address book for an e-mail program, and Google decided to turn that into a friends list for a new social network.” Rotenberg also announced his organization plans to file a complaint with the FTC claiming that the Google’s use of e-mail conversations to build a social network was unfair and deceptive.

The privacy improvements introduced by Google now give people options up front as they use the service for the first time. These include an option to make the list of those you follow and those following you private or public. You can also now choose to block people not on your Buzz or Google profile, and you can separate your lists by those who already have public Google profiles vs. those that don’t. Learn more in Google tweaks Buzz privacy settings

This isn’t the first time Google has released a new product with privacy settings turned off by default as a way to quickly increase adoption, nor is Google the only company that exposes consumers first, then pulls back to quell the uproar. You don’t have to look further than Facebook’s latest debacle over changes to their privacy settings, or their Beacon functionality to see how quickly some companies will trade consumer privacy and safety for their own visions of expansion.

Sadly, this won’t be the last time we see a company pull this kind of stunt. Indeed this type of behavior will continue until companies learn that consumers will revolt – and that the damage to their reputation will last a lot longer than the time it takes to implement a feature ‘roll-back’.

Speak up and demand companies provide clear choices to consumers BEFORE implementing changes that affect privacy, security, or safety.

Linda

Comments Off | In The News | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by reallylooksbothways

Search Engines Responsibility to Block Malware

November 24, 2009

New malware is released on the Internet every 30 seconds according to McAfee research, and the problems it causes threaten the very health of the online environment. Much of this malware is distributed through search results. Some is disseminated through the millions of legitimate websites that have been infected – including .gov, .edu, .org, and .net sites. Other malware is distributed via the millions of deliberately malicious websites whose express purpose is to dump malware onto hapless consumers’ devices.

Tackling the malware scourge are dozens of security software companies and law enforcement agencies. Enduring the most pain are consumers and companies doing business online. Who’s not at the table?

Search engine companies – the very companies that enable the dissemination of most malware today – are notably absent in this battle. Why have Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and other search companies. failed to step up to their role and responsibility in blocking malicious sites?

Why is Google promoting harmful sites in their sponsored search links section?

Without using a tool that flags harmful sites (in this graphic, it’s McAfee Site Advisor, but there are several options) consumers have no way of knowing that the first sponsored link is harmful.

Defining ‘malicious’ is not an impossible task. Malicious is a matter of definition along a sliding scale, and it can be argued where the line should be drawn. Fine, argue about it – then set a standard.  

Identifying malicious sites is not an impossible task; dozens of companies flag and block malicious or infected sites. Though search engines can’t guarantee to catch every single malicious/compromised site, they could dramatically reduce the likelihood that consumers and companies would be infected – and dramatically reduce the revenue of organized crime groups promulgating this crap.

Blocking malicious sites is not a freedom of speech issue. Search engines are owned by companies with policies, and they can write those policies however they see fit. Freedom of speech does not apply in a company-owned environment, whether you’re standing in Disneyland or using a search engine. Companies have the right to set their standards for what they display, accept, monitor, or block.

  • One policy option could be that the search engine will not knowingly display sites that have been shown to be malicious or are currently infected.
  • Alternatively, search engines could have a policy that provides consumers choice – for example, giving an option for consumers to choose between “only show sites believed to be free of malware” vs. “show me all sites, but highlight ones with known risks”.

Identifying and blocking malicious sites should not be a financial issue. Identifying malicious sites isn’t inordinately expensive – or the free services available for consumers would not exist. Blocking malicious sites that want to get top placement as sponsored links does represent a loss of revenue– but is this revenue from criminal or malicious entities worth facilitating the exploitation of consumers?

In fact, search engine companies should be able to make a good business out of notifying legitimate companies, organizations, etc. that their sites are infected.

Search engines, step up to social responsibility

The major search engine companies need to step up to their social responsibility rather than simply abetting the circulation of malware. These engines are the ideal chokepoint – if malicious sites aren’t displayed in search results, or are clearly marked as malicious – consumers and companies alike won’t fall victim.

Consumers, hold companies accountable

If you want a safer online experience, you need to demand a safer online experience from the companies you use. Change doesn’t happen overnight, but change is much less likely to occur when consumers aren’t demanding it.

YOU have the power to change the level of risk search engines expose you, and your family, to – let your search engine provider know you want protection today.

Linda

Comments Off | Linda's Blog | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by reallylooksbothways

Swiss Sue Google over Street View Functionality

November 16, 2009

The Swiss are known for guarding personal privacy, so it comes as no surprise they consider Google’s Street View an invasion of privacy.

Switzerland’s federal data protection commissioner, Hanspeter Thuer, has announced plans to bring a lawsuit against Google and force the company to make changes to its Street View functionality.

Citing specific concerns over the exposure of persons and cars being shown on Street View, particularly outside sensitive locations such as hospitals, prisons or schools, Thuer also wants to ban images taken within enclosed areas such as walled gardens and private streets.

According to the commissioner, Google refused to implement the majority of recommended privacy measures to protect Switzerland’s strict tradition of personal privacy, and as a result, he is bringing the case to the Federal Administrative Court.

Until this case is settled, Thuer has asked the court to require Google to remove all photographs taken in Switzerland and to cease taking any more photos in the country.

This isn’t the first uproar over Street View’s the invasion of privacy. Google has been heavily criticized in Europe, Japan, and here in the US for exposing individuals without first obtaining consent.

In response to the lawsuit, Google said it believes Street View is legal and is disappointed by the prosecution, which it will “vigorously contest”.

If YOU find Street view invasive, read my blog How to Remove Images of Your Home from Google’s Street View

Linda

Comments Off | In The News | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by reallylooksbothways

History Repeated – Is Google the new Microsoft?

November 10, 2009

Was it only in 2004 that the pundits posed the question as to whether Microsoft was the new IBM? How time flies. Last week, freelance journalist Erik Sherman raised the question “Is Google the new Microsoft?” as he reviewed Google’s latest behaviors and market dominance. For evidence, Sherman listed several similarities:

  • Google asks users to trust them with an explanation essentially of “because we say so” and because we care
  • Dominates search almost to the extent that Microsoft dominated the desktop and laptop
  • Acts first, asks later – after the lawsuits start hitting the fan, as with the book scanning
  • Ignores antitrust concerns, drawing government attention in the U.S. and Europe

What do Google’s dominance and actions mean to your privacy and safety?

Google’s services have the ability to collect, data mine and resell information – whether it be your content, your location, or elements of your identity – to a far greater extent than an operating system or productivity tools ever could.

This means that transparency, consumer choice, and the ability to opt out of features, services, or to have your information erased entirely are more critical than ever. In the face of these risks, the points noted above are more than a little concerning.

  • Trust must be earned, on a user-by-user basis; and trust-but-verify applies even when trust has been earned. Every user should be able to see the information collected, stored, or shared about them at any time – and be able to have it removed.
  • Monopolies become dictatorships – benevolent or otherwise. At the end of the day, companies and corporations are responsible to their bottom line. The actions taken by Google that have drawn governments’ attention should concern every internet user. Their seeming disregard for antitrust concerns only heightens the unease.
  • Ask first, act later must guide decision-making.

Do you know Your Internet Safety Bill of Rights?

If not, it’s time to consider what you should be demanding from every online service. I wrote your Internet safety bill of rights in 2005, and they are more relevant today than ever.

Linda

Comments Off | In The News | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by reallylooksbothways