Google lobbies hard to derail new US privacy laws – using dodgy stats As blowback against Facebook and its business model enters its third week, with netizens railing against the amount and type of personal data the social network has on them, calls for new privacy laws have started growing. And in response so has a secret lobbying effort, spearheaded by Google, to head those calls off at the …
The problem here is that people thought they got "great stuff" like Google search, Android, Facebook for free. Initially this seemed a good deal - "I don't mind them seeing what I read, or serving ads to me, I get all this for free". But users were never told what monetary value those companies placed on the different elements of their data, nor the extent to which their data would be sold on to progressively less ethical companies (starting of course from a very, very low base).
This of course will define the problem, not represent a solution, but at least it is a start.
The problem here is that people thought they got "great stuff" like Google search, Android, Facebook for free. Initially this seemed a good deal - "I don't mind them seeing what I read, or serving ads to me, I get all this for free". But users were never told what monetary value those companies placed on the different elements of their data, nor the extent to which their data would be sold on to progressively less ethical companies (starting of course from a very, very low base).
It's always been possible to estimate the monetary value. The companies are ad funded. Adverts are, ultimately, paid for by the consumer (that's you and me) through the price of goods in the shops. And we pay for those ads no matter what tech companies we use.
Use some broad brushed numbers, here in the UK it's about £7billion per year spent on on-line advertising. If we assume 30 million working people in the country, that's about £230 each. Every year. No choice.
So "free" isn't really free at all. In fact, it's rather expensive. It's about the same as a broadband package costs.
If Google managed to snaffle 30% of that, they're taking approx £80 out of every working person's pocket per year. Assume Facebook get the same... Now, is Facebook's service worth £80 per year? Probably not. Google's combined services, yes, provided there's no advertising / data slurping.
I've argued before in these forums that the tech companies need to change their business model before they get legislated out of existence. And it would make them more profitable. If one considers what Google spend that £80 per year on, a large fraction (say, 50%) of it is electricity and infrastructure required to host all that slurped data and run all those analytics. If they went ad-free, subscription only, no analytics / data slurp, they'd be able to chop that electricity bill and infrastructure costs by a large amount. Split the difference with the consumer, and we're left paying £60 / year (£5 / month), and they're left with a smaller infrastructure, less energy consumption, and probably £20/year/user added to the company profits. Moreover with a properly run, non-antagonistic approach to privacy, they'd likely stop attracting €billion fines every year like they are at the moment.
Ok, that's some wild-arsed estimating going on there, but it's probably not so wide of the mark. And if legislation on data privacy effectively outlawed data slurping and big, ad-funded online services, subscription funded services might become the only option available to the consumer.
> It's always been possible to estimate the monetary value.
No it hasn't. The only way one would be able to estimate the value of their personal data to Google would be if Google provided the same services it provides now - Gmail, Android, Gcalendar, etc - free of { spying | slurping | aggregating | optimizing } but for a monthly fee to the user, while maintaining its current profit growth rate.
That way, anyone choosing to pay for these hypothetical spy-free services from Google would get an objective idea about the value of their personal information to Google.
But, no such pay-to-play-but-not-slurp Google services exist, and for a very good reason.
Google doesn't want us to know the market value of our personal information, because this information is traded by Google on closed and opaque markets. We don't know how much our personal information is worth to something like Facebook or Cambridge Analytica or AggregateIQ. Apparently it's worth quite a bit.
Side-note: I take issue with the Android is free marketing bullshit. It's not free. The price of Android is baked into the price of the device, whether one buys it unlocked on Amazon or Ebay or locked by/from the carrier. Any revenue generated by the ads on Android is just the cherry on top.
Side-note: I take issue with the Android is free marketing bullshit. It's not free. The price of Android is baked into the price of the device,
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but to clarify: Contrary to Windows, which is preinstalled on devices, but which cannot be obtained separately for free, which means its price is baked into devices, Android is really something you can download for free.
Manufacturers do not need to pay Google anything for using Android on their phones. And even if they want the device to be compatible with Google play services, the only constraint is that they have to preinstal Google apps.
You can however consider that Android is subsidized by ad revenue, and so its price is baked into the price of everything that you buy, from cars to chewing gum.
> Contrary to Windows, which is preinstalled on devices, but which cannot be obtained separately for free, which means its price is baked into devices, Android is really something you can download for free..
Except (a) you can download a Windows ISO image from Microsoft directly and free of charge and (b) you can buy an Intel laptop/computer that does not have Windows pre-installed. Or you can build your own Intel computer from parts. I've done it myself many times.
Can you build your own smartphone from parts bought on the open market (i.e. retail)?
> Manufacturers do not need to pay Google anything for using Android on their phones.
But users of Android phones do pay the phone manufacturer for using Android. Simply because there is no equivalent bare-metal phone available for sale. Just like users of computers running Windows pay Microsoft for using Windows. The laptop/desktop you bought from Dell/HP/etc has a Windows license sticker with a valid Windows serial key affixed somewhere on the back. That serial key did not come for free.
And every version of Android running on a phone manufacturer's device is full of closed-source binary-only drivers for various essential components of that device. Without these binary-only closed-source drivers, the device is non-functional.
Can you buy a Huawei/HTC/Samsung/Sony/etc smartphone with no operating system (i.e. bare-metal) installed? Presumably it would be cheaper than the equivalent hardware with Android installed. And, after buying such a bare-metal phone that isn't available anywhere, can you download a mobile phone Android image from somewhere, free of charge, free of usage fees (rent), install it on your mobile phone, and have your phone work?
The short answer is no, you can't. You have to obtain the device-specific Android image from the manufacturer. Including the binary-only closed-source drivers specific to your device. In most cases you can't even obtain the Android image from the manufacturer, as it is only available from the mobile network operator.
AOSP is the closest thing to free, but it won't have the closed-source binary-only drivers for your specific device - as these are only available from the device manufacturer. So, while you might be able to build an Android AOSP image from source, your smartphone simply will not work.
So, how exactly is Android free?
"Can you build your own smartphone from parts bought on the open market (i.e. retail)?"
Maybe not a smart phone, but certainly Android tablet, laptop, and other devices can be bought on the open market, or bare metal devices, and install Android on them. I've even installed Android on desktop computers. For free. https://www.olimex.com/ is at least one source of such devices, some of which you can build from parts. A lot of their devices are open hardware, and they sell kits.
Not to mention installing free Android versions on existing phones. http://xda-developers.com/ has a lot of details about that. You can even compile these versions yourself. Still for free.
I think you still need to pay for a license to run Windows, even if you can download it for free. No need to do that for Android.
No it hasn't. The only way one would be able to estimate the value of their personal data to Google would be if Google provided the same services it provides now - Gmail, Android, Gcalendar, etc - free of { spying | slurping | aggregating | optimizing } but for a monthly fee to the user, while maintaining its current profit growth rate.
Well, in my defence I didn't claim it to be an accurate estimate! But I bet I'm within a few £10s.
If as both you and I suggest Google did actually convert to a pure subscription model, that would allow a measurement of worth to be made, which would certainly trump my estimate.
I can't see that happening spontaneously - none of the companies seems to have the imagination to see where the legislative environment is headed. So when legislation does come about that destroys their current business models, that will at least be a level playing field for all the companies. And it'll probably raze a few of the companies to the ground. The ones who have worthwhile services will then discover the true value of their services; survival.
In a sense such legislation has now come into existence, with the recent changes to the Communications Decency Act in the US. By law companies now have to be good enough at filtering certain types of content.
The initial response, which has been to close off certain forums, won't work; users will simply hijack another. That's probably already happened. This will rapidly escalate into a war of cat'n'mouse between users and a company's AI filters. The filters are going to lose. Sooner or later the companies are going to have to moderate content by human inspection. Which utterly destroys their current business model; human inspection is too expensive...
However if the service was subscription only, the companies have a better ID for users (bank details), and can therefore more easily pass the blame (and the court summons) onto the true source of all the problems; those few Internet users hell bent on socially unacceptable behaviour.
Society is still learning and adpting to the Internet and its ramifications, so it is normal that tech companies get a head start in a given direction before society catches up and decides what it needs to do.
But that issue aside, the very basic problem about the US is that companies have the right to lobby. As long as that situation endures, The People will always be fighting an uphill battle for their rights.
"But that issue aside, the very basic problem about the US is that companies have the right to lobby. As long as that situation endures, The People will always be fighting an uphill battle for their rights."
Because according to SCOTUS precedent, companies ARE people; otherwise it can be argued they can't be tried, taxed, etc. Gonna be hard to fix that without Amending the Constitution.
The first amendment to the US Constitution describes one of the most fundamental rights of those subject to the government, and that includes those who combine their efforts in the form of a corporation. The right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances" is not a second class right, and along with "the freedom of speech, or of the press" applies to corporations as organizations of individuals just as it does to newspapers and individuals. To characterize it a a "problem" is to miss the point, among others, of the Citizens United decision.
Some, maybe many, think that was a bad decision, but given the current corporate organization of "the press" and the ease, in the present technological environment, of becoming one of "the press" it is hard to see how to "fix" it in a way that would not be trivial to circumvent. Similarlhy, in the case of lobbying, it would be hard to make a reasonable boundary between corporate and individual "petition for a redress of grievances." It would be equally hard to distinguish between the petitions of the "bad" corporations that we do not like (think Google or FaceBook or the NRA) and the "good" ones that we tend to like (think PETA or Friends of the Earth or the Sierra Club). All of them lobby, including with the help of paid lobbyists. Those most often left out, in fact, are the natural persons, who mostly have a hard time getting the ear of a political or civil official.
Which poses a significant moral quandary. Which is more important: FREE speech or FAIR speech? This is important because fair speech cannot be completely free while free speech implies the freedom to use speech to squelch speech (the bullhorn effect).
"Society is still learning and adpting to the Internet and its ramifications, so it is normal that tech companies get a head start in a given direction before society catches up and decides what it needs to do."
Not that I disagree with the sentiment here, but the part I always find amusing about statements like this is the idea that society will ever catch up. Society is still learning and adapting to things like the discovery of fire, the wheel and writing, and not doing a particularly good job of it much of the time. The internet may be the newest and shiniest thing for people to worry about, but given our track record we'll still be worrying about it 100,000 years from now.
The problem with ad based models is John Wannamaker's observation: "Half the money spent on advertising is wasted, I do not know which half though". With the rise of ad blockers and vpns, the value of ads becomes lessened. Ads that are never viewed are not effective nor do they help the site pay its bills.
... and wasn't surprised at all about the content. Facebook 18.175 KB, Google 73.493KB (Euro notation). Neither of them hold a candle to what the Veterans Administration holds. That's in GB's, rather a lot of them. One curious artifact is that Google Timeline has me sitting here at the address for my Room & Board for the last 16+ years while all Google's services real time determine my location by the location I open a VPN portal. Amazon has the same problem. I'll have to check where Facebook thinks I'm located. Not owning a mobile phone really does have benefits. YMMV as most people can't imagine living without their life support smartphone device.
While I was there at both I did go through and correct what ads they will be presenting me with. I have zero interest in basketball and football (US or rest of the world's versions). Ditto automobiles or other vehicles. What was good to see there, and this tracks in practice, is their keying in on IT/EEE/Maker interests. Which is useful. Again, YMMV. Hell it's certain to vary from my use case.
Wow, Kieren, do you honestly believe frauds and scams are absent from Facebook? That is so, so wrong. Here are a few of the most notorious:
1. Joe Mercola, the man who paid the largest fine in history to the FTC for making false health claims, has 1.7 million likes for his FB page.
2. David Avocado Wolf, the notorious alternative health scammer, has 12 million likes.
3. Food Babe, food scammer, has 1.2 million.
4. Vaccine Re-Education Discussion Group - an anti-vax fraud - has 102K members.
5. Stop Mandatory Vaccination has 123K members.
And there are tons of groups claiming climate change is a hoax, alternative medicine works, and similar garbage.
There's a difference between scammers and anti-vaxers, since there isn't anyone profiting off the anti-vax movement to any great degree (I'm sure someone will come up with a few examples, but it is nothing like the multi billion dollar "alternative medicine" industry selling herbs or homeopathic remedies)
If you believe Facebook should rule anti-vax and anti-climate change are a hoax and not allow the groups on Facebook, where do you end? Do they ban NRA groups if they decide it is "obvious" that guns are a problem? Do they ban a "Hillary for jail" group because the FBI declined to prosecute her? Do they ban an "impeach Trump" group if they decide they shouldn't allow that until Mueller's investigation is finished and his findings are released? Talk about a slippery slope.
Ban scams where someone is trying to make money off something, but groups where people are wrong should not be prevented. This is the internet, if you don't have the freedom to be wrong on the internet you don't have freedom at all.
It really should not be hard. Two click boxes for the Google (and Yahoo!, etc.) start pages:
#1: Allow this time, once only.
#2: Allow now and in future until cancelled (e. g.) by blanking the prefilled box)
That, and a link to the full text description of what data are collected and how long they are retained.
The whole thing shouldn't clutter it up too much.
Does Google miss this simple truth? Especially in the US system, it looks it's very easy to be arrested, and then released because there are no real supporting evidences.
But it's no surprise Google reports "arrests" and not "convictions". And uses odious crimes when probably most of the time people just ask to remove very stupid things they made, to avoid them haunt them forever.
Because Google algorithms don't weight the real importance of a piece of news - after all they're just "dumb" mathematical algorithms -, but just how many links to it, there's very good chance the first four pages of result are about the arrest, and the release beyond page ten.
Still, this is a basic violation of human rights. Google can't judge people using its ranking algorithms, so the Right To Be Forgotten is a very needed countermeasure.
The simple rule in the UK of Innocence before PROVEN guilty should prevent Google (and similar "service" providers) from reporting the names of people who have yet to have their day in court, as you said an Arrest is NOT the same as a CONVICTION... otherwise does this not constitute a legal case for deformation of character?
It is not in the publics interest to see / hear speculation.... News is News but if its not factually gained with the sources being fully checked, then its simply NOT NEWS... Such action only arms the guilty with evidence that theyre NOT being given a fair trial, especially if the biggest "search engine/ advertising agent" is plastering potential false information at the footers or side margins of most news and discussion websites..
Situations such as Operation Ore was a lesson, as well as a huge case against one of humanities greatest fears, whereby a number of innocent people lost their lives / lively-hoods / mental stability because of such over zealous advertising of information which was yet to be proven....
The fact then that these "ads" are sold means that Google (and their like) are/is then profiting from the misery they're potentially creating for innocent persons - is this ethically or morally right??
How do you write an algorithm for that? Automation has its faults and those pushing it should re-examine their use of it especially when it affects lives... if nothing else a retraction/apology should be DOUBLE the size and Double the initial exposure
not sure if that was a rant :)
The basic violation of human rights, so called, would be publication of an arrest, or charge, as news. Yet as far as I have seen nobody advocated for that information to be withdrawn by the publisher, something that for print is nearly impossible and in the US cannot be imposed by the government.
The demand is to make the report, presumably a true one in most cases, harder to find.
The demand is to make the report, presumably a true one in most cases, harder to find.
Yes. Exactly right.
It is easy for those of us with a logical, IT approach to think that the law is like programming: a set of rules. It isn't. It is about goals and outcomes and justice and proportionality. And the just outcome changes over time.
That is particularly hard in RTBF cases.
There is a strong public interest in being allowed to quickly report arrests and charges: it can cause other evidence to turn up, it can protect or warn local people, it can comfort victims, etc. A rule preventing reporting until the case is proven would not be a good thing. On the other hand, everyone knows that "suspect acquitted" is never going to be as big a news item. That is the balance we live with as reasonably proportionate.
On the other hand, years later the public interest is different. The original reports in "Backwater Daily Journal" are not the ones that matter -- the ones that matter are the ones Google returns. Unless systems become smart enough to make sure that acquittals mean that all arrest reports are no longer visible (and spent convictions hide the original convictions where that concept exists) then the best compromise is to make sure the search engines delete the information. That is the proportionate thing to do.
The law isn't a machine: it is a series of compromises to try to work in the way society wishes in as many cases as possible.
These days I try to use Google and their other products as little as possible.
For untracked searching I used to use DuckDuckGo but that seems to use Bing these days so I now use StartPage which piggy backs off Google (without tracking, apparently).
Unfortunately the only platform that various Electric Vehicle videos I watch is YouTube as they use the income from Google to pay for production.
"It is safe to assume that most Facebook posts aren't (whatever)"
I'm sure that _is_ safe to assume. I'd know if I had an account there I could log into.
So?
If most of the posts that want to be forgotten are on Facebook, that's still where most of the "bad" ones are even if they are only a tiny fraction of the total posts there.
Such "reasoning" puts the rest into question - even if you're otherwise correct. Surely you can do better than that.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
