I don't like idea of the permanent cookie or the idea that the Google toolbar reports everything. So, if what google-watch says is true, I would be quite happy to see these features banned, or a court order requiring Google to stop using the permanent cookie and to produce a new version of the toolbar which doesn't snoop and which automatically loads itself in place of the earlier, snooping versions.

The big question is whether to believe google-watch. I did some research on google-watch (using Google!). You may find my findings rather long, so I'll sum up now:
* google-watch is politically motivated by a 1960s-style ideology - see http://www.counterpunch.org/hand01032003.html
* but it may be a useful source of alerts PROVIDED you check them out for yourself first and don't just take google-watch's word for it.

My research was as follows:

I searched Google for "google watch" and got plenty of results - censorship does not appear to be one of Google's sins. There was a lot of publicity for google-watch but very little analysis of google-watch's claims. What little analysis I found was rather sceptical.

While following up my search results I visited http://www.pressaction.com/pablog/archives/000920.html, which says that google-watch is funded by Public Information Research, Inc., a nonprofit public charity, which also funds http://www.namebase.org
and http://www.cia-on-campus.org - try visiting these sites, I'm sure you'll find them interesting (and very 1960s).

google-watch's page about Page Rank (http://www.google-watch.org/pagerank.html) actually says "Google is so important to the web these days, that it probably ought to be a public utility" - ignoring the fact that control of public utilities in the USA is a politicised mess (look at California's electricity problems) while in Britain (where I live) privatisation of the utilities has led to better service at lower prices.

Then I searched Google for "google cookie" and almost all the material in English appeared to originate from google-watch. It worries me that none of the big e-zines has commented on the issue - they're not afraid to criticise much bigger companies than Google, e.g. Microsoft.
I was surprised that nothing I found pointed out the big limitation of any persistent cookie - it's likely to vanish if you re-install Windows and will mislead Google if you get a new PC and sell / give te old one to someone else. So persistent cookies are just not in Big Brother's league.

Then I searched for "google toolbar". One of the early hits was http://www.httprevealer.com/usage_google.htm, a piece of technical analysis which says that the "Advanced Features" option does report to Google all pages you visit (that's how you can get Page Rank fomr the toolbar) but you can turn off the "Advanced Features" option at any time and the toolbar's installer warns you about possible privacy issues. A more balanced account than google-watch gives!

Thne I searched for "Public Information Research" and the only hits I got were from sites funded by Public Information Research, Inc.

Then I got bored.

Posted by: Philip Chalmers on February 16, 2003 03:30 PM

---

 

I believe that ALL companies have the capability to take advantage of privacy issues and use their data irresponsibly.

At some point, I simply need to put my trust in certain companies until I learn otherwise. Pointing out that google can do all these things isn't notable until they break that trust. Up to this point, my use of the tool as well as following their overall ethics from the founders/company allow me to continue to trust them.

As Scott McNealy is so fond of saying "You have no privacy, get over it."

Just like sharing your email address, any information about yourself that you give away has the potential to be taken advantage of.
We'll go nowhere if trust isn't in here somewhere.

These words could come back to bite me...that's another risk I take.

jonathan

Posted by: jonathan on February 16, 2003 04:06 PM

---

 

> So persistent cookies are just not in Big Brother's league.

In germany we seem to be more sceptical - we discuss cookies - and privacy and security are written in big letters. Following the link to geobytes and seeing the possibilities was fascinating. In germany we have a term named "raster fahndung", this should translate to something like "grid tracing", which means that every information you get will make the grid more finely woven. Such a cookie is one piece of the puzzle, the geolized IP another, and so on. And if you consider that sometimes the IP-Pool from where your dial-in IP is assigned from is very small you perhaps may realize how near they could come - if they want it! Even if you buy a new computer, your location is the first approximation, your language and your search phrases perhaps the next, and the referrers of the pages you typically surf and perhaps the start-page of your browser may be another one. I believe that it's possible to come very close to you if you leave (a bigger amount of) your marks in their logs. And if not Google itself, perhaps other (higher) institutions may be interested in your data. Perhaps Big Brother is nearer than you expected him, and he lives in the internet ;-)

Posted by: Gerald on February 16, 2003 07:20 PM

---

 

in Britain (where I live) privatisation of the utilities has led to better service at lower prices.

I am not sure everybody would agree. At least not train passengers.

it's likely to vanish if you re-install Windows and will mislead Google if you get a new PC and sell / give te old one to someone else. So persistent cookies are just not in Big Brother's league.

That point doesn't make persistent cookies less of a problem, it actually makes it worse. If I sell my computer to a criminal, or bought it from a criminal, I may end up in a world of trouble because the authorities may make erroneous assumptions.

Ever since the war on terror started, the benefit of the doubt doesn't seem to be long to you anymore.

As Scott McNealy is so fond of saying "You have no privacy, get over it."

Americans may not have privacy, but some countries have. It really is a gigantic problem that since I am using an American search engine, I (we?) too have to suffer the consequences of the crappy American privacy laws.

Google should err on the safe side when it comes to privacy.

Posted by: JEH on February 16, 2003 07:27 PM

---

 

If you don't like Google don't use it. "Google should do this, Google should do that, someone should make them behave." What a bunch of whiners. There are alternatives, use them. Invent your own product that's better.

Posted by: mother hen on February 18, 2003 11:13 AM

---

 

Yeah, if you don't like your privacy being invaded, stop participating in society! Kill yourself! Right-e-o Mother Hen. Good philosophy.

Posted by: father cluck on February 18, 2003 12:34 PM

---

 

Father Cluck - you miss the point. If you don't use Google they don't pick up any info. You are in control. Don't go to their site.

Anyway, you're unimportant, no one wants to know what you are up to.

Posted by: mh on February 21, 2003 04:29 PM

---