G+_Awais Bajwa Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Google Can Do Evil When watching the latest TWiT, the three pundits on the show failed to articulate a reason for their trepidation about the concentration of information at Google when asked by +Leo Laporte. The subject is so important it deserves at least an attempt at an answer. So here is a start to what I hope with be a lively discussion. In the information age – information is power and we are all familiar with the wisdom that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. But what are the dangers of too much reliance on Google. Two items come immediately to mind: the presentation of slanted information and comprehensive recording/archiving of information about individuals. The Presentation of Slanted Information – We all try to rely on a variety of information sources to discern the truth about our world. Many of us have given up on multiple subscriptions to different publications and rely on Google search to present us with the news of the day. We trust Google to provide an unbiased algorithm that doesn’t slant our search results. Politically slanted search results (think of the Great Firewall of China) would have obvious implications to our knowledge about the world and understanding of it. To my knowledge, Google provides no transparency on how its results are derived. How would we analyze individualized Google search results to empirically test that they don’t support a particular political agenda? Currently, I believe we simply trust Google to present “honest” search results base on an unbiased algorithm for our news and information, but we have no third party verifying search integrity, so “caveat emptor” on this score. The comprehensive recording of all our personal information from searches to gmail to in home data (nest) to purchases (Google wallet) provides a single source to produce a dossier or profile on every individual – think of the East German Stasi on steroids. Even if we believe, perhaps naively, that Google would only use this data for commercial uses, not as a means of classifying us by our political beliefs, by ethnicity, by our health requirements, by our sexual preferences, etc., it does make for a terrific target for third parties (national intelligence organizations, hackers working for political parties, etc.) who would want this information for a variety of reasons to include extortion or to intimidate those who have opinions that differ from their own. I don’t think the above considerations require a dystopian view of the world. Rather, they are indicative of a realists perspective on human nature. So, I hope others who followed the conversation on TWiT will add their own views and suggest how individuals might adjust their online behavior to avoid such cataloguing. Leo Laporte Om Malik Serenity Caldwell #google Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Bryan Lakatos Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Not to play fanboy or anything, but isn't PageRank, the Google algorithm for ranking pages, public? That would be your desired transparency right there. To test individualized results, use incognito or private browsing mode in your browser, or have someone else somewhere else do the the same queries, then comare results. Not too hard. The whole of the internet is available to us to check Google's answers. No trusting required. If their results start to suck, go somewhere else. You committed the cousin to the worst internet trope of all: you didn't mention Hitler but you did relate Google to the Stasi. That instantly invalidates your argument. Just kidding. Truthfully though, it is true that information is power, but not if you don't do anything with it, and therein lies the difference. Google offers me services and real, tangible benefits to my life in exchange for my information. Because of those services, I willingly give my info to them - no secret torture or forced coercion of my friends and relatives necessary. I control what I share with them, and they have no power over me but that which I offer voluntarily. If I stop benefiting, then I'll leave. Rather than being afraid of the modern world, I find it much better to be intelligent and informed about it and then use it to my own advantage. It is correct that someone is taking advantage of access to my information, and that someone is me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jason Meyer Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Bryan Lakatos pretty much summed up what I would have said. I also don't really understand how Google Search would be used for news. Are you googling "news"? And just because someone CAN do evil, doesn't mean we should treat them as if they HAVE don't evil. Everyone is capable of doing terrible things but until Google has sold my information to hackers and they start to blackmail me for searching for Olympic medal standings, I will continue to trust them. And if they break that trust, I'll go somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Kuroryusan Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Another thing is that those third party organizations can easily go after the sources of information. The easiest thing to do is get to the credit agencies, get all the information about your purchasing habits there then go after whoever they need to in order to get that information. The fact that your information is in different places, in this day and age, has little to no effect on the ability of someone who really wants information about you to get it. At least google gives you more control and visibility than any other Web company, Internet, credit card, retailer etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Brian “B-Badd” Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I don't mind Google knowing so much, the benefits of Google having all that info gives them the ability to offer me a better service. As least with Google you see the benefits of all that information gathering, just look at how Google Now improve as more data is gain about personal travel, TV likes, Web searches. My cell carrier has almost the same info but offers no benefit. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Michael Deis Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Enjoying the comments thus far. On PageRank, Wikipedia indicates that: PageRank is not the only algorithm used by Google to order search engine results, but it is the first algorithm that was used by the company, and it is the best-known. More significantly, For search engine optimization purposes, some companies offer to sell high PageRank links to webmasters. ... However, Google has publicly warned webmasters that if they are or were discovered to be selling links for the purpose of conferring PageRank and reputation, their links will be devalued (ignored in the calculation of other pages' PageRanks). ... According to Matt Cutts, Google is concerned about webmasters who try to game the system, and thereby reduce the quality and relevance of Google search results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank So if it is possible for outsiders to manipulate Google results and Google actively "devalued" links considered suspect, one can imagine that those with access to the algorithms at Google are quite capable of manipulating results should they have some interest in doing so. Let me be clear, I do not have any evidence that Google does manipulate results. But with a view to who watches the watchers, how do we know? This is particularly true if the algorithms are proprietary and being continuously updated. Perhaps there is more information or a link to a Google page that provides greater transparency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 What is interesting is that most people are okay with Google's data mining because Google is perceived as good. At the point that Google is perceived as evil, the many reasons we should be concerned now will become why we are concerned then. Which simply demonstrates the importance of being concerned now. There's not evidence that amassing hoards of information on people will be used for evil except that historically that tends to happen. Perhaps our hope is that given the scale of what is being gathered we're making a lot of assumptions based on Google's history and not human history which still begs that we think about the worse case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Michael Deis Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Joseph Polk That is why I thought a post on this might be useful. I do think that the biggest pro, in terms of Google not doing something untoward with our data, is the cost to their business. It would so adversely impact their bottom line that they have a huge incentive to remain "honest brokers". But as you indicate, that is a form of faith and as a wise President once said one should "trust, but verify". We are just trusting with little if any verification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Michael Deis And really how would we know? It's largely trust. And think of how many people put their business on the line using Google products. And that with no real phone support. Not only are they trusting their data with Google their business away from Google is also dependent on that trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Kuroryusan Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 The problem I have with your argument is that I see you're not taking into account that wherever you go the same doubts and questions you're raising with Google also apply. If you have a car or a house the bank has your information. If you get a driver's license the government has your information. Same thing with your insurance, groceries etc. Everything you do is recorded one way or another. It has always been an issue of trust. It doesn't mean it has to be a blind trust but you have to be reasonable in weighing what you expect, what you get and what you give up on any transaction. Most people trust their banks and credit card companies. Does that mean you have to allow them to do whatever they want and not pay attention to their actions? Obviously no. I believe it is unfair to state that because Google doesn't allow people to know exactly how their algorithms work they're somehow less trustworthy . There are very valid reasons why that's the case. Even without people knowing how their algorithm works you get people trying to game their search results all the time and Google spends no small amount of resources trying to combat that. The moment they release their algorithm to the people will be the day Google will become garbage unless we can get everyone who uses the Internet to behave properly and promise not abuse the system. Another reason is that the algorithm is one of Google's biggest competitive advantage. I have always said that Google's innovation is not on android or their services but all the infrastructure behind that powers everything they do. That's the reason they are way ahead of the game than everyone else. It is not easy to create a system that not only provides services but scales to unimaginable size and is reliable. Apple's map situation was just an example that you can't just show up, throw a lot of money, buy companies and immediately become relevant or equally proficient at Web services. The reason the guys on twit couldn't answer is because they're just repeating the same hollow argument over and over in their echo chamber while knowing they're being disingenuous to their audience which is the saddest part of it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I wouldn't argue that anyone but Google needs to know the intricacies of their software. I'm more concerned with what they do with the data than how they get it. I do find it interesting how quickly we defend them. It's interesting because other than the use of their software and how useful that software is to us we have no real basis for the level of acceptance we give. There's nothing wrong with caution, skepticism, and criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jason Meyer Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I think the main reason I'm so quick to defend Google is that it is voluntary. I choose to let Google know all this information about me because as of now, the benefits outweigh the costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Jason Meyer And I'm not indicting Google so much as pointing out how cautionary we probably should be. It is voluntary to some extent. You would hard pressed to do much on the web, though, without Google having data from you. It's not 100% voluntary in that regard. FWIW, I'm in the pool too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Kuroryusan Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Joseph Polk do you know how your credit card company, bank, ISP or insurance company uses your information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Carlos S. Lebrón Jr. No. But my insurance company is limited by law. The difference is the bank only know where I spend my money and how much is there. Google knows what I search for, who I might be interacting with, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Michael Deis Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Dennis D. McDonald I too was surprised by Leo's comment. Perhaps he considers himself similar to the founders of Silicon Valley firms in that he has built an enterprise from nothing. In that sense, they are similar and he has every reason to be proud of his accomplishments, even if the scale is somewhat different. I'm sure he receives offers similar to those for Revision 3 which is reported to have been about a $30 million purchase by discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I'm just struck by how quick most people are to defend Google with very little substance. Granted, their isn't a lot of evil to point to either but it is interesting that the defense is steeped in a deep sense of personal value but none of us can really quantify that value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Dennis D. McDonald But does it? How engaged is Google really? It creates things and they draw users largely due to usability but I wouldn't call Google engaging, per se'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Dennis D. McDonald I'll concede that but I think it's engagement with its users is lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts