Is Google becoming too big ??

[semi-pro waster]

but it is kept to yourself, unless i'm mistaken and the employees are reading through your private life information? and for instance lets say they do read the information they have stored, it'll be given to the employee as information about customer 1223923 rather then with your name and address, so still your private life is still private. nothing is lost, only gained

Sorry if I'm being dense here but what am I gaining? Even proceeding on the supposition that Google does and/or will only use computers to analyse the data and no-one will ever be able to identify me with my browsing history. If targetted advertising is what I'm gaining then with all due respect to the people providing it I'd rather not have it, I neither need nor want something to interrupt me and say "have you considered product XX since you were looking at product YY".

 

[Microwave]

Snip.

You must be a very pessimistic individual.


Google is run by PEOPLE, people who are normal just like me and you, yes, of course they want to make profit, and they do without any problems. So, they can afford to give back to the public, which is admirable.


Oh, and Android and Chrome being a gimmick...you've GOT to be joking...!

 

[dangerstat]

they aren't different to other companies simply because they want to make a profit? your whole post seems very generalised (not sure if this is the correct word?). do you have anything to back up any of the things you said in your post?

My post is generalised in the sense I believe companies are designed to make a profit *above all else*.

You must be a very pessimistic individual.


Google is run by PEOPLE, people who are normal just like me and you, yes, of course they want to make profit, and they do without any problems. So, they can afford to give back to the public, which is admirable.

That is exactly why Google are excellent at marketing. How on earth did they make you believe that. They "give back to the public" to boost their image, not to help you or me.

 

[unwashed potato!]

My post is generalised in the sense I believe companies are designed to make a profit *above all else*.


That is exactly why Google are excellent at marketing. How on earth did they make you believe that. They "give back to the public" to boost their image, not to help you or me.

i'd say if google charged for street view there'd be no problem with that as the country would accept it's cost them a hell of a lot of money. this would make them more money then street view does now. priority number 1 is to increase profits?

i'd say offering a paid for maps listing as well as a free listing (like yell.com offer featured, sponsered, and free) google would make more money. but they don't do that either.

if google's number one priority was to make more money then i guarantee they'd be making more money. look at any of their services and there is a way they could offer a better, paid for service, or even just put more adverts around, but they don't.

 

[dangerstat]

i'd say if google charged for street view there'd be no problem with that as the country would accept it's cost them a hell of a lot of money. this would make them more money then street view does now. priority number 1 is to increase profits?

Google made $1.88 million in the first quarter of 2009, they don't need to fund research so they give away gimmicks to get your support (so you use Google.com, Google.com makes more advertising revenue / sustains revenue advertising revenue etc..).

 

[Heofz]

People in this thread arguing that "only if you have something to hide should you be worried" are so horribly naive (or ignorant) it's embarassing.

It's ok for every tiny aspect of your life to be kept on a big database, because no real person will actually be reading your details, it's only stored on a computer so therefore there's no problem.

LOL give me a break. If data is stored somewhere, then somebody can definitely access it. So there is too much data for any one person to read through? Irrelevant.

Here's one example, you had a falling out with some bloke at a nightclub, maybe over a girl, who knows. This bloke just happens to know an "admin", in charge of maintaining a database such as the one being discussed. Now suppose at the touch of a button he finds out exactly where you live, whether you live alone, your internet surf habits, even all your personal details such as what you like to fap to, whether you pick your nose, etc. The next time he meets you he brings all that private stuff up and embarasses you in front of all your friends by reading a list of all the things you didn't want them to know. And it was possible, simply because the data existed, and the guy looked you up.

"But if that guy did that, he'd be fired!" I hear some of you say. Irrelevant. You don't even know if he would get caught. Deterrents are not 100% prevention, in any scenario.

"But there would always be physical measures in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening!" I hear some of you say. Sure thing, because the authorities and companies in the UK alone have been looking after our personal data so well over the last few years. This sort of thing could never EVER happen, right? lol.

As for the whole "Google - Evil? vs Pure?" thing, Google is just a company. They might have an unorthodox organisation model, but that is irrelevant. Just because Google has built up a reputation of being "not evil" etc, doesn't mean you should assume their reputation holds actual truth.

Incidentally I'm not saying Google is evil either. I just urge people to acknowledge that we do not know enough, and we shouldn't assume it to be one way or the other from simple hear say.

 

[unwashed potato!]

.

the government don't have as much responsibility to keep the data safe as a company like google does. google are a company and could lose out big time if they ever lost data/it fell into the wrong hands, the government wouldn't (as much).

also then as you say there is security measures in place, and have listed the onyl way for it to be in the wrong hands is for it to be lost, which throws the whole enemy in the pub idea out the window, it's something that could never happen. it's very fair to say that google have a lot of security in place to make sure no one can access the data and use it in a bad way, then to assume google have all this data, are in the news often about it, and then are leaving it open to being abused

in fact as google has become so large, it's even more important the data is kept safe, so it's success comes with even more benefits. a small business could lose the data and it could go un-noticed, but never would it go unnoticed for google without damaging the company massively.

 

[trent]

People in this thread arguing that "only if you have something to hide should you be worried" are so horribly naive (or ignorant) it's embarassing.

LOL give me a break. If data is stored somewhere, then somebody can definitely access it. So there is too much data for any one person to read through? Irrelevant.

Here's one example, you had a falling out with some bloke at a nightclub, maybe over a girl, who knows. This bloke just happens to know an "admin", in charge of maintaining a database such as the one being discussed. Now suppose at the touch of a button he finds out exactly where you live, whether you live alone, your internet surf habits, even all your personal details such as what you like to fap to, whether you pick your nose, etc. The next time he meets you he brings all that private stuff up and embarasses you in front of all your friends by reading a list of all the things you didn't want them to know. And it was possible, simply because the data existed, and the guy looked you up.

"But if that guy did that, he'd be fired!" I hear some of you say. Irrelevant. You don't even know if he would get caught. Deterrents are not 100% prevention, in any scenario.

"But there would always be physical measures in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening!" I hear some of you say. Sure thing, because the authorities and companies in the UK alone have been looking after our personal data so well over the last few years. This sort of thing could never EVER happen, right? lol.

As for the whole "Google - Evil? vs Pure?" thing, Google is just a company. They might have an unorthodox organisation model, but that is irrelevant. Just because Google has built up a reputation of being "not evil" etc, doesn't mean you should assume their reputation holds actual truth.

Incidentally I'm not saying Google is evil either. I just urge people to acknowledge that we do not know enough, and we shouldn't assume it to be one way or the other from simple hear say.

And how did this bloke in a nightclub no your name and IP address? But let me guess that's irrelevant.

 

[Dave M]

I think the truth is Google is just like any other large company. It's priority is profit, but it's learnt that sometimes the positive effects of giving away certain pieces of software (gains them "coolness") over weighs the downside of them keeping things closed source.

I don't think they create (or buy) services for corporate image - they want eyeballs.

Once they have you looking at a site or giving them data they can use to target you with, it's up to the marketing boys to work out how to make money from it.

Google has done pretty well with making money from advertising on the most unusual of things - it took a while but look how many geo-contextual ads you get on google maps now?

 

[D D Danneh]

That is exactly why Google are excellent at marketing. How on earth did they make you believe that. They "give back to the public" to boost their image, not to help you or me.

Well they did do it to help you and me, SO that they boost their image.

I much prefer this method to some other companies employing things such as DRM to boost profits. It doesn't help us in any way, all it does is screw over the paying customer. Likewise with misleading packaging that contains less of the product than it looks like. And on the same point, excessive packaging that increases the cost (and profits), at no benefit to the customer.

Google might try to appear like one of the "good guys" to boost their image, but it works, and hardly makes them evil. They could increase the number of adverts on searches, if you prefer? They could pay their employees less, or force you to pay for those additional services, but they don't.

Edit: Or like Telescopi says, for targeted ads. I'm quite happy for google to look at my searching habits to determine ads for me. I'm quite happy to recieve google maps for free if there are ads on it. Until Google start doing things that could negatively impact what I do without my permission, they'll stay in my good books.

 

[Dmack]

there's a video about this called the beast file, look it up

 

[Microwave]

...

...

If you have trust issues with 'the SYSTEM' then don't use it. I am happily reaping the benefits with no doubts or worry and I'm not naive.

You could fabricate this kind of viewpoint about ANY business. I'd rather enjoy my life rather than picking holes in people/businesses/methods that interact with us.


As has been said, Google is a multi-billion dollar organisation who's data security is in some areas more important than government which you live and deal with either willingly or unwillingly. The night club scenario (as again has been said is invalid).

 

[trent]

I'm never EVER going to buy from a online shop or use a bank. Just think of there databases! They have my name , address , bank account details , phone number. They know what i buy. Now imagine i fall out with some guy in a club over lets say a girl. He could just so happen to work for one of the banks or big online stores. And show my friends what ive been buying!

 

[dangerstat]

who's data security is in some areas more important than government which you live and deal with either willingly or unwillingly. The night club scenario (as again has been said is invalid).

What on earth are you talking about.


Google: "This is Google we've lost your Youtube viewing history"
Hitler: "OMFG get broxy we're invading eurpoe again!"

 

[Stretch]

They are too big, and we’re staring down the barrel of another 10-20 years of monopolistic domination by a tech company.

 

[Microwave]

What on earth are you talking about.


Google: "This is Google we've lost your Youtube viewing history"
Hitler: "OMFG get broxy we're invading eurpoe again!"

Read.....

the government don't have as much responsibility to keep the data safe as a company like google does. google are a company and could lose out big time if they ever lost data/it fell into the wrong hands, the government wouldn't (as much).

also then as you say there is security measures in place, and have listed the onyl way for it to be in the wrong hands is for it to be lost, which throws the whole enemy in the pub idea out the window, it's something that could never happen. it's very fair to say that google have a lot of security in place to make sure no one can access the data and use it in a bad way, then to assume google have all this data, are in the news often about it, and then are leaving it open to being abused

in fact as google has become so large, it's even more important the data is kept safe, so it's success comes with even more benefits. a small business could lose the data and it could go un-noticed, but never would it go unnoticed for google without damaging the company massively.

 

[Xenoxide]

Will it get to a point where they have so much info that other organisations and agencies (private and government) will look to use it ??

This already happens with Facebook, my friend you'd be amiss to think it doesn't happen with Google.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook

Facebook's most recent round of funding was led by a company called Greylock Venture Capital, who put in the sum of $27.5m. One of Greylock's senior partners is called Howard Cox, another former chairman of the NVCA, who is also on the board of In-Q-Tel. What's In-Q-Tel? Well, believe it or not (and check out their website), this is the venture-capital wing of the CIA. After 9/11, the US intelligence community became so excited by the possibilities of new technology and the innovations being made in the private sector, that in 1999 they set up their own venture capital fund, In-Q-Tel, which "identifies and partners with companies developing cutting-edge technologies to help deliver these solutions to the Central Intelligence Agency and the broader US Intelligence Community (IC) to further their missions".

 

[AyJay]

The only thing that really bothers me about Google is how they have those ruddy pop-up ads on Youtube. I mean really, does anyone use them?!