Time is not so far when Google will tell you what you want at what time. It is because of the strong database which Google is supposedly developing by comprehensive consumer surveillance.
It may be beneficial for Google in sending relating ads to the users based on their online habits. However, it’s a serious breach of privacy. This is what I have learned from the recently released privacy ranking by Privacy International.
In its first report entitled, ‘A Race to the Bottom: Privacy Ranking of Internet Service Companies’, the Privacy International has dropped Google to the bottom of the list which consists of internet bigwigs such as Apple, eBay, Microsoft and YouTube.
The report has raised many eyebrows on Google’s privacy policy opening up an open battle between the search giant and rights group.
The cyber rights group has come down heavily on Google because of its aggressive use of invasive or potentially invasive technologies”, market dominance and the size of its product range.
The report based on six-month of extensive investigation by the rights group into the privacy practices of more than 20 net companies has placed Google in the bottom of the ranking for comprehensive consumer surveillance and entrenched hostility to privacy.
Suppose, you use Google services say, Gmail, Desktop, Google Finance, Google Search, Picasa, YouTube etc, your online behavior will be monitored and kept in a database anywhere in the Google kingdom. From that database, Google can learn users’ tastes, fashions and habits.
Criticising the report, Google said,
We are disappointed with Privacy International’s report which is based on numerous inaccuracies and misunderstandings about our services.We recognise that user trust is central to our business and Google aggressively protects our users’ privacy.
In an open letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, the Privacy International Director, Simon Davies has explained,
So do we have a vested interest in attacking Google? No. Some of the people we work with have Microsoft connections, but we work with many thousands of people as partners, collaborators and managers. One of our trustees, for example, works for a law firm that has Microsoft as one of its many clients. We agreed with this person that a legal document should be drawn up expressly fire-walling his professional from his private involvement with Privacy International.
He went on saying,
We socialise with Microsoft employees, but then again we socialise with employees of the UK Home Office, which in a recent celebrated chapter attempted to destroy our reputation following critical work on the UK ID card proposals. We are happy to reach out to anyone, regardless of their affiliation.
