The rise of Google empire and its proliferating range of applications is worrying those who dislike having all their eggs in someone else’s basket.
Google has even integrated its Thoughts program with other software, which means every thought is mapped on Google Earth, reactions to books are noted in Google Books and even sarcastic remarks about poorly written e-mails go down as drafts in Gmail accounts.
The catch? Like all its products, Google stores people’s thoughts on its servers for 38 years. If law-enforcement officers harbour suspicions about people’s thoughts, they can subpoena Google for what’s on their mind. Additionally, Google and the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, have teamed up to create incentives for thinking: privatisation of thoughts. That's right. If your business is fond of your ideas mapped by Google Thoughts, your employment contract points out that those thoughts are your employer’s property.
Okay, so such a scenario is unlikely. But Google, a garage start-up at Stanford University, has quickly become what many call an “information empire” threatening what was once its unwavering commitment to open information on the internet. With that image comes controversy, with the company replacing Microsoft as the decade’s cause ce(acute)le(grave)bre for open-source junkies.
Google began in 1996 as a PhD dissertation by Larry Page, a computer science student, looking into ways of mapping the web for his search engine. He became interested in the information that could be gained about each page by examining which pages linked to it. With Sergey Brin, a fellow student, he designed a web crawler called BackRub that began documenting the web.
At the time, most search engines ranked pages by the number of times a search term appeared there. Page and Brin found that search engines could locate more relevant pages by giving higher rankings to pages linked from other pages. With that concept, Google was born in 1998.
In a decade rocked by anti-trust lawsuits and a movement pushing for a more open approach to technology, many techies saw Google as a safe haven. All its software was – and remains in some sense – open source, meaning any programmer can gain access and improve on Google’s code. As the company thrived during the 1990s’ dotcom boom – and right before its crash – many saw it as just another search engine unlikely to succeed.
While pop-up advertisements and malicious “spyware” rocked the internet in the early 2000s, conglomerates such as Microsoft and Symantec rushed to patch the software errors that advertisers exploited. Google, however, was busy generating revenue by selling subtle, quick-loading advertisements based on search keywords, which ultimately gave it unequalled stature.
Google went public in 2004. Starting at $85 a share, some investors became instant millionaires. Time Warner and Nasa partnered Google to enhance their information-gathering abilities. In turn the corporation, in trying to consolidate all the tools of the internet into one source, established a firm grip on other services such as blogging, e-mail, books and news. Google quickly overtook Microsoft as the looming “threat of the century”, computer geeks warned.
Its privacy policies first came under fire in 2002 when software developers discovered Google placed a “cookie” – software that tracks users’ internet habits – that would remain in computers until 2038. Critics alleged that the company offered few legal guidelines as to how they would use the data, with some disgruntled activists starting anti-Google movements. Their websites spread, even though Google responded in 2007 by changing its cookie to expire in two years.
“So there have been some questions raised, over the years, whether or not the excellent technical services Google is providing can, or are, used also to build up a kind of control mechanism,” said Norbet Klein, founder of the Cambodia-based Open Institute, which promotes open discussion on the internet. “I use Google every day, but we have also to be aware that any socially uncontrolled strong power of a monopolistic nature . . . can be a problem.”
Controversy hit Google in 2007 when Privacy International, a UK-based watchdog, blasted the company for its privacy policies, ranking it bottom of a list of internet companies such as Yahoo! and Excite. Among the criticisms, PI noted the seriousness of having a centrally located warehouse containing the data of millions of users. It even went so far as to denounce Google for exposing consumers to the “risk of disclosure of their data to third parties” and declared it was “hostile to privacy”.
“Account holders who regularly use even a few of Google's services must accept that the company retains a large quantity of information about that user, often for an unstated or indefinite length of time,” the report reads. It added that Google gives no clear limitations on how it can use the data and offers no opportunity to delete data even after terminating a Google account.
The company’s representatives defended the company by claiming that cookies remain necessary to remember each user’s search preferences. Google supporters also point to a subpoena in 2005 demanding information about every search string during a one-week period, which Google successfully resisted after another court ruled partially in the company’s favour.
“I am for Google,” said Mean Lux, a founder member of the Cambodian bloggers. “I always believe in the achievement people have made and how they could use that for his or her benefit. Those people who fight for the public so others lose business only discourage open competition.”
Critics contend, however, that in emulating the privacy policies of the competitors it once criticised, Google has essentially abandoned its “don’t be evil” motto, falling into a long-feared monopoly trap.
In 2006, the company opened Google.cn, its China branch, and faced renewed criticism for its already questionable privacy policies. In launching its website, the company endorsed China’s controversial “Great Firewall of China”, a system of internet censorship by the government. Under the agreement, Google removed websites from its search results that espoused ideas not in line with the government. It also promised to reveal the personal information of dissident internet users who used its services.
Google claimed that it could “play a better role in Chinese society” by “defending it rather than boycotting it”. A similar written statement argued that “while removing search results is inconsistent with Google’s mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with [its] mission”.
Perhaps Google’s new “follow-the-rules” ethic has big implications for the internet in the 21st century. As software developers and tech enthusiasts must rely on Google for basic services – no other corporation offers such unparalleled co-ordination between various platforms – many are giving up their qualms and working with the corporation.
Privacy controversy, however, continues to dog the company. When it expanded its innovative Google Maps in 2007 to include Street View – photographing local streets of nearly every major city in the US – people complained that their right to privacy was being ignored and they were being photographed without permission. The company responded swiftly, promising not to publish photographs of individuals who didn’t wish to be included.
But there was a catch. Before removing such photographs Google demanded it be sent scanned copies of the complainants’ driver’s licence and business card as proof of identity. Kevin Bankston, one disgruntled privacy activist at the Electronic Freedom Foundation who appeared on Street View, said he had to “jump through more hoops than a trained seal” and further jeopardise his privacy with such documents.
Google eventually backed down, offering Bankston and his fellow complainants a way out: send your name, e-mail address and the location of the photograph. The drawn-out debacle, however, raised suspicions about the company’s attitude to privacy, particularly as it seemed to prefer not to act unless concerns were raised publicly – not quite the sort of reassurance for which Bankston and the Electronic Freedom Foundation hoped.
Since May 2007 the European Union has been closely examining Google’s use of private data and challenging what it has called a “vague privacy policy”. The sheer amount of data contained in Google’s systems constitute a potential monopoly on information, critics warn, and the EU is concerned whether such data is used in accordance with European privacy laws.
Last June, though, Google admitted that its privacy policy merited cleaning up, which met with praise from EU authorities.
Google supporters feel such privacy concerns border on paranoia and say the corporation has cleaned up its act. “The side effect of any sophisticated technology is that they gather data about users,” said Bun Tharum, a technology professional who runs the ThaRum blog. “This is just an example of some people with great ideas making great profits. People should be more receptive to that.”
Others agree that, despite its privacy shortfalls, Google makes life easier. “Just like everyone here, I use Google mainly for searching,” said Leang Chumsoben. “My daily work and life depend on it.”
Controversy, though, has never been far away. When Google expanded its searches to include books, magazine and newspaper articles in 2005 and 2006, it needed to approach the law on copyright as if it was a “slippery slope”, said a lawyer for Agence France-Presse which was one of many news agencies involved in the dispute.
Google responded that any copyright holder could opt out of having its content listed on its search results, a controversial position that perhaps got the company into more trouble. AFP hit Google with another barrage, saying it was impractical to locate and opt out all of its work on such a massive search engine. The corporation’s cache system – meaning old, defunct websites are stored as snapshots for future viewing – complicated matters.
As Google pushes the limits in data collection and copyright laws, activists and critics have scrambled to limit what they call a “threat to the information age”. Some allege Google has turned “open source” into a charade of knowledge sharing, while others claim the company threatens the laws that currently protect their work. Regardless, a single corporation with such control over the world’s data is a significant worry for privacy advocates, techno-geeks and even governments seeking to curb the power of businesses. Yet others see little problem, working with Google as a primary source of work and lifestyle.
“Google is not just a verb,” said John Weeks, a web developer in Phnom Penh. “It may as well be the new Microsoft, resented due to its ubiquity.”
