Privacy in the age of Google

"At Google, we are keenly aware of the trust you place in us and our responsibility to protect your privacy. As part of this responsibility, we let you know what information we collect when you use our products and services, why we collect it and how we use it to improve your experience." This quote comes directly from the google site that provides the teaching video provided above. While Google claims to be concerned about the privacy of it's viewers, in the "Age of Google" in which we live, privacy is hard to come by. I write this with a bit of cynicism, with a numb sense of "isn't it obvious by now that privacy was lost with the invention of the Internet?"; however, as I read the article from the August 3 2008 edition of the New York Times entitled "The Trolls Among Us.", my smug cynicism transformed into a righteous indignation at the audacity of anyone to invade another's privacy and worse use it to harm them. The article tells of a seventh grader who committed suicide. In his goodbye note, he randomly mentioned his ipod that had recently been stolen. Some hackers got wind of this and hacked his MySpace page, placed an i-pod on his grave, took a superimposed picture of it (see above) and posted it on a random board of 4chan.org. As if that wasn't enough, the hackers took it a step further and posted a dramatic re-enactment of Henderson's suicide on YouTUbe. This incited numerous prank calls to the home of this youngsters grieving parents which as you can imagine thoroughly upset them, especially his mother. Has the Google Age brought with it a lack of respect? Unfortunately, I think the answer to that question is "yes." You see, it's not about privacy as it is about respect. That's what has been lost in the transition from old media to new media. Media is now a free for all of some members of the all just don't respect others and their privacy.

I used to think that when it comes to privacy, it all boils down to, just like most anything else, money! Just like there are two types of justices - one for the rich and one for the poor, there are two kinds of privacy, also: the kind of privacy you and I should expect, and the kind of privacy the rich and affluent should expect. Then, the Tiger scandal broke and I began to revise that frame of thought. Monetization of media is real but, aach of us is fair game, regardless of socio-economic status. Privacy doesn't make any difference to Google's bottom line - but your privacy does, just as it does with Facebook. The more you share the more data can be mined; the more adverts can be targeted; the more money can be made. That's why Facebook's nudging you towards sharing more, and it's why Google is now personalising search for everybody whether they want it or not. It's not that they're evil; it's that they simply don't see why anybody would worry - and because they don't get it, they're going to continue to attack your privacy for no other reason than because they can.

What they don't seem to understand is that online privacy is like curtains: you don't block the windows because you're running a meth lab or a brothel in your house; you block them because you don't want weirdoes peering through the window when you're watching TV and sharing personal, private time with those who really matter in your life.