I just have to mention a thought that I had during Ed Bott 's privacy rant on Sunday

[G+_Keith Newlander]

I just have to mention a thought that I had during Ed Bott's privacy rant on Sunday. He had some good points about Google reading email, but then he said something that I think sort of threw them all away.

 

He was talking about how "privacy experts" are worried about Google. I don't know who these experts are, but of course they're worried about Google. It's their job to be. Whoever they are, you can't take their word, it's biased. The people that are in advertising have a biased view, the people that aren't have a biased view. That's just how it is. If you only listen to one side (like Ed seems to be doing) then you don't get the whole picture. It takes both. Listen to both sides and then make up your own mind.

 

On the other hand, it's good to see guests with strong opinions that don't always mirror Leo's (or mine). Robert Scoble is also always good for that.

[G+_Marc Kline]

Sure, but let's not reduce the argument to absurdity. Yes, everyone is in some way, to some degree, biased about any topic they consider. But if we accept that there is ultimately a truth of the matter, someone with a bias ends up being right and another wrong. And how do we know he is just "taking the word" of "privacy experts". It sounded to me as if he's considered the issue quite a bit.

 

I think his analogy to the public response to climate change over the years was well placed. If we don't give the issue its credit, it's quite possible that there will be repercussions. This is not to say, "Let's wear foil hats", but let us continue to be leery of how a few large profit motivated companies collect and utilize our data. I fear that much as with government related issues, if there is not continued consumer/public pressure about things like this in the marketplace, corporate/profit interests will end up superceding public interests.

 

I love all of the great things the data collected about me does for me, but yes, I do worry about what this data might do to me (my children, grandchildren, ...) some day.

[G+_A.J. Bobo]

It seems apparent to me, too, that Ed had definitely considered this topic. Maybe he wasn't saying that he had only listened to the privacy expects, but was telling Leo that he needs to listen to both sides of the argument. If that's the case, I agree completely with him. Leo tends to lean towards total publicness in these discussions.

 

As I'm thinking about it more, I'm thinking that Ed's argument was more for caution than paranoia, and my gut reaction (the one that I posted up there) was a bit out of place. We don't know what these large companies will do with our data. Those companies have a responsibility to tell us what data they are collecting and what they are doing with it. Meanwhile, we have a responsibility to decide if we are comfortable with what we are hearing. If we aren't, there needs to be a way to either back out of the data collection process or communicate our concerns to the companies holding the data. Now is the time to make those changes in how other companies handle our data and how we react to that. Small changes now will save us all a lot of trouble later.

 

After thinking more about this, I seem to be coming down more on the side of careful caution. That said, I'm still giving Google data about me left and right because, at the moment, it makes the internet a much better place for me. I'm hoping they don't screw that up.

[G+_Marc Kline]

It's hard to avoid the allure or the threat of the effect of data on our lives! Hopefully "Don't be evil" always wins in an argument against "Let's make money".

[G+_Marc Kline]

I took what Ed said as a welcome insight, whereas it sounds like others took it as unwelcome activism. Maybe I heard it differently than you, but my takeaway was not of a bashing on Google but a concern about its business model. He thought that Microsoft's Scroogled campaign presented a legitimate concern about what we trade for an admittedly valuable service.

[G+_Marc Kline]

The viability of business models change and companies reinvent themselves frequently. Google may make its money one way today and might another way tomorrow. I think if you focus too much on the particular players and consider his criticism an affront to Google, you miss the larger, more valid point about the potential problems of a few entities having an enormous vault of data about millions or billions of individuals.

[G+_A.J. Bobo]

If we look at the big picture about the potential dangers and problems of companies collecting our data, what do you think we should do? Do we, as a culture, need to change something about our behavior?

[G+_Roy Hembree]

+1 to the comment that it's nice to hear guests with strongly contrasting opinions.

[G+_Zulhaimi Abdul Hamid]

Gmail will never be an enterprise solution in this model. But its not like it will trick us to buy something we don't want. Without collection of data, we would not have Google Now. Something that everyone agrees has provided convenience to our lives.

 

Ed loves using the touch pad with Windows 8. No need for touch screen. So I'd take his opinions with a grain of salt.

[G+_A.J. Bobo]

Google has an enterprise version of Gmail in Google Apps for Business (I think that's the name). I use it here at work. It's basically GMail, but without the adds. There's also some control at the organization level about how those apps accounts can be connected to other Google products.

[G+_Marc Kline]

A.J. Bobo I think that we, as a culture, ought to continually exercise some critical thinking as it pertains to how we incorporate technologies and services into our lives. If we get into the habit of just signing away our privacy all of the time, we are ultimately bound for some major abuses of it in the future. We shouldn't all cancel our Google/Facebook/Twitter/Amazon/etc. accounts, but maybe we also shouldn't be so quick to brush off concerns about how our data might be used now or in the future. To be clear, I don't think anyone here is doing that, but I worry that it is generally true.

[G+_Pete Marus]

Not true about them accepting of others with strong opinions. Ask Adam Curry. When's he been back on? Also Leo was a punk about him by trashing him after Adams last appearance on Twitter.

[G+_A.J. Bobo]

Marc Kline I guess it'll be our job, then, to be smart about what we do, and help everyone else do the same. Thanks for your insights.

 

Pete Marus I realize that Leo often doesn't have people whose opinions are too far away from his. Adam is definitely a good example of that. And, yeah, Leo did kind of trash him after the fact. Leo knew he was a conspiracy theorist when he invited him on. He should have seen it coming.

[G+_A.J. Bobo]

Ed's comment reminded me more of the kind of things Scoble brings to the table. I may not agree with him, but he always makes me think hard about why I don't agree with him. That, in my opinion, is more valuable than a conversation that's a bunch of guys agreeing with each other.

 

With Ed, I disagreed, then, though this conversation, have changed my view now that I understand better what he really said. That makes this one of the best and most important TWiTs I've seen. Thanks to all involved.