[301] in Privacy_Forum
[ PRIVACY Forum ] For Google and Others, Few Good Deeds Go Unpunished
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (privacy@vortex.com)
Tue Dec 4 20:41:32 2007
Message-Id: <200712050111.lB51BsMZ016314@chrome.vortex.com>
To: privacy-list@vortex.com
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:11:54 -0800
From: privacy@vortex.com
Reply-To: PRIVACY Forum Digest mailing list <privacy@vortex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: privacy-bounces+privacy-forum=mit.edu@vortex.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
For Google and Others, Few Good Deeds Go Unpunished
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000334.html
Greetings. Back in July when I inflicted upon the Net my Gilbert
and Sullivan parody "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major Googler"
( http://lauren.vortex.com/googler ), these lyrics were included:
But companies worth billions are between a rock and a hard place,
Try do things really right and stockholders may just spit in
your face.
I was reminded of these words very recently while reading a few of
the responses to my recent commentary regarding Facebook, where I
suggested that Facebook was treating users like nothing more
than raw materials to be squeezed dry of every drop of potential
profit ( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000332.html ).
The rather disheartening attitude expressed by some of these
responding e-mails could best be summarized as:
What the hell do you expect? These are extremely valuable
corporations. Why should they do anything other than maximize
profits by any and all legal means possible? They don't have
any responsibility to treat users as anything other than profit
center fodder or to do anything that doesn't help their
bottom lines.
Better duck down -- the spit flying! And it doesn't portend at all
well for the Internet if such a mercenary philosophy proves to
dominate, given the immense information and transactional powers of
the most popular Internet services.
Does it have to be this way? No, but the balancing act can be a
tightrope walk extraordinaire to be sure.
Look at Google for example. There's been quite a bit of chuckling
in some quarters whenever Google undertakes a project that seems not
to have an immediate profit motive. Some stock analysts couldn't
wait to pile on criticisms over Google's renewable energy efforts,
for example -- seemingly ignoring the fact that Google indeed has
serious interests in energy sector issues -- those gazillion (more
or less) servers aren't running on happy thoughts alone.
But putting the power bill aside, is there really anything so
unspeakably awful about devoting some resources to efforts that
don't necessarily pile gold bullion in the vault from day one?
Similarly -- and no doubt I'm inviting more emotional retorts -- I
simply don't sense in Google today the sort of utterly predatory
attitude toward its users that does seem to pervade some other major
Internet-related firms.
This is not to say that I agree with all Google policies -- as
regular readers of this blog know. But I believe it's safe to say
that even many (or most) Google *employees* also don't necessarily
agree with all of Google's policies. It seems clear from public
statements that even the Google leadership feels internally
conflicted at times regarding some of their own policy issues --
torn between fiduciary considerations and the real world
complexities of operations in a politically-charged international
arena.
Such conflicts and associated nuanced views are actually a very
healthy sign. There are few more reliable indicators of potential
problems in an organization than blind faith that never questions
policies. It's not necessary -- and in fact can be
counterproductive to openness of internal discussions -- that the
details of such debates and deliberations be visible to the outside
world. But the fact that vibrant policy debates are taking place
within organizations such as Google is a factor that must not be
ignored, even in cases where one disagrees with the outcome of those
deliberations.
Ultimately, whether we're talking about Google or Facebook, it's
users themselves who carry most of the high-value cards, for as I've
noted before, Internet users can change their service allegiances
essentially at the click of a mouse. Our collective interests are
best served by not belittling or devaluing the efforts of firms that
try to move beyond the bottom line, especially in their treatment of
their customers and users.
Or to quote Charles Dickens' Ghost of Jacob Marley:
"Business! Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my
business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all,
my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in
the comprehensive ocean of my business!"
And so it goes, even today. Especially today.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
- Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
