Because Google has already thought of ways to do new weird stuff with data that we can't even imagine yet.

Their teams have the next 10 years planned.

It's just good business. Is it illegal? No. Is it immoral? Says who.

Trust them? Not so much, because I know how smart they are. But damn are they useful. Same with Twitter. Don't like it? Just stop. But we can't.

Hats off to Socialtext for recognizing this so early in the game.

You ask questions that we should ask of any company where so much data is aggregated -- whether their motto is "don't be evil" or not, and whether we believe it or not. It's worth asking, and that's the role of the fourth (fifth?) estate. Your points about SocialText and others are also interesting; do you think they will continue to avoid data mining, and have they said that will be a real piece of their business model and point of differentiation?

Thanks; really well done.

Ok, now I hope I'm part of the crowd:)

But then, behold! I cheated too. Went to the conversion tracking pages and removed some of the hits. Now, Google thought I'm making less money from their ads and my minimal bids for the same keywords came back down.

And then, maybe it's just plain coincidence, right?

Dave Collins put it very nicely here:
http://www.sharewarepromotions.com/newsletter/what-price-google-analytics.asp

Great question, Merredith! I know we've talked in our PR planning meetings about how Socialtext's platform enables Enterprises to keep their sensitive data behind their own firewall (as compared to a SaaS solution like Google). I TMed Ross Mayfield of Socialtext to verify it is an integral part of their business plan as a market differentiator.

To tell the entire truth about Socialtext, the Google datamining comment was just something that I proposed as one of a couple joke testimonials to one of their developers. (The other was, "Like Excel, but without the viruses.") I don't really know that Socialtext considers this to be a major strength of theirs (though they did choose to put it in their press release, which I found sort of surprising).

On the other hand, it's definitely true that I would use Google Docs in a second if I thought that I could trust my data to them. As an engineering firm that works with almost entirely new renewable energy technologies, we have to keep everything we do confidential. I suspect that this rules out Google's services for a lot of companies.

I do also worry about the larger privacy issues of Google controlling the data of the entire planet, but that's not what pushed me toward Socialtext.

I just attended a conference on Enterprise 2.0 and Cloud Computing with Amazon Web Services, Google Apps, and Force.com presenting, where these issues were debated extensively. Here's my analysis:

http://suprablog.com/index.php/2008/06/10/enterprise-20-and-cloud-computing-conference/

David

I have been working with Ross, Eugene and the rest of the team at Socialtext in a marketing capacity this year and find them particularly sensitive to the data integrity and privacy needs of the enterprise market. Socialtext even goes so far as to offer their platform as an appliance to make installation and maintenance convenient like a SaaS solution, but from within the customer's firewall.

At least, good until that data is used against you. Directly or indirectly. If I sign up for Google Health and fork over all my confidential data, won't all the Medical Insurers want to comb over that data to find ways to 'reduce cost'? (Meaning, provide less services?) What other ways will companies find to use my own data in a way that works against me?

Too bad the Scientologists didn't leave their banner ads up at Enturbulation.org (anti-scientology website). Could they have potentially gotten reports on the audience of that website and... say... determined that 45% of them visited shock image and porn sites?

Those are two fun ways that Google can be used against us, and that is even with NOT mining across services.

After Google Health was created, I no longer trust Google. I'm looking to reduce and somehow find a way to eliminate any connection I might have with them. They've just got too much data, and I also don't trust that their definition of "evil" won't twist in the wind to meet their immediate needs.

Yes we think very deeply about privacy, security, and privileges regarding information and data. One of the things I've always found fascinating is the way that privacy within a group or team facilitates more sharing and transparency - within the parameters of that group's understanding of trust and rights. These parameters of course are not one-dimensional - individuals, teams, groups, and companies all operate in different intersecting and subset rings of context, and we think hard about how to support those varying "privacy gradients".

So it is based on this DNA and philosophy of Socialtext that we make design decisions, and not specifically targeting other vendors' approaches and potential weaknesses.

We have a flexible deployment model for customers - shared hosted, dedicated hosted, and on-premise appliance. Appliance customers have, of course, more control over the security and privacy of their content, but we try to be as explict as possible about our respect for the privacy and ownership of customer data nad content on our hosted implementations as well.

Thanks for stimulating the conversation.

JT
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com

Of course, it is feasible, and we need a watch dog — the same way as we need one to be sure all the food that we haven't cooked, treated and grown from seeds that we selected ourselves isn't contaminated, and I've heard more about food poisoning since Google leads the market than about Google letting any human access personal information. Same thing for cars (Sure they haven't save quarter on that AirBag thing?), OS (Windows backdoor any one?), construction, etc.

Google has far more to loose then any one on betraying trust: competition is a click away and advices on how to switch Mail or Virtual Office will follow; try to change the market share of Monsanto, Microsoft, Ford or Donald Trump with a scandal. Instead, people rusched to Gmail.

Finally, Google employees would be the first blow the whistle if need be: they are mostly the best coders in the business — not exactly a commodity in this day and age; all reports from the inside describe them as mostly opinionated Open-Source fanboys; some (few) have switched to the competition. In a culture where anyone can peek at any project, I doubt a secret plan for something as central as that would just go unnoticed.

*Can* something happen? Obviously — and fears like the one behind SocialText are not completely out of the barn, especially if you work directly in competition with Google. An open-source front that could integrate ‘in the cloud’ documents with locally stored would be useful, for instance.

More importantly, you could easily have leaks, even with a well control system. Imagine cookie-based ads within the same website, with diverse content (not exactly a strech), say video hosting; you go to the naughty section (political commentary); your friend (who doesn't know you are a public-transport activist in the closet) wants to show you a fun lip-sync and he sees an ad for a “Metro is Cooool” T-shirt. Busted.

Google should think about this, and they do, the same way they must have brainstorming session about amazing services that are fantastic, but that would blast your privacy so hard it's almost fun. They laugh about it not really making sense and move on. I know: we do that all the time at work.

We don't need to prohibit cookies because of that scenario, but to implement user control. Last time, Google let you access your Search records, and erase what need be. What about erasing info on the other services? I'm guessing they are working on it — they should be. But to be honest, I don't see how they would do that differently then by letting do erase things: let you mark important documents not to look at? Dangerous in the unlikely event their security gets passed through.

Just finished Nicholas Carr's The Big Switch and he has some quotes from Google power players talking about their dreams of an AI informed by their data.

I have less alarming reasons for avoiding being a tenant farmer on the Google-net but that AI thing's got me thinking!

Here is my short answer to whingers on this thread. Google owns the data, and they're free to use it in their business in ways they see fit. The issue here is private property rights. Users internet data (browsing history, Google email, and search history) which have been collected by Google, if they voluntarily use Google's services and products, belongs solely to Google and not to the user. So, until participants on this thread realizes this fact, then the moaning should stop about what Google can or can't do with its own property. Remember, users chooses to use Google's services voluntarily in the first place. Google didn't force them with a gun to use their services.

I would suggest for your future self and any family you may have or produce, that you check you brazen attitude about corporations being the sole owner of the data you generate. It has implications far deeper than we are exploring here. The regulation of data control will be the most significant contribution Gen Y will make to the world. Akin to the boomers and civil rights. And, if you think this issues stops at big business leveraging this data to make money, you have another truth coming.

Am I missing the point? I what way? Here is a fact. You can't go to your local dairy or store and buy something from there and tell the shopkeeper that he/she can't use your transaction data for any purposes, such as marketing or otherwise? Why? Because the transaction data is his and not yours. This means that he/she can do whatever suits his/her business interests with. The data is important for the shopkeeper to use (mined) for competitive advantage against his competitors, since there are important hidden knowledge that is buried deep in the transaction data.

These are already happening in supermarkets and the retail industry, such as Wal Marts, etc... Do you complain about Wal Marts? If you have done so, please point me out to a comment of yours on the internet that showed Justin Kistner had made negative comments about supermarket for mining their own (supermarket's and not consumer's) data? So, do I see an article here at RWW raising concern of what the supermarket are doing? No. Why? Because supermarket data-mining is not Web-2.xxx . Is the story here selective perhaps to generate readership? Yes.

Justin said...
I would suggest for your future self and any family you may have or produce, that you check you brazen attitude about corporations being the sole owner of the data you generate.

Again, refer to the first 2 paragraphs above. It is already happening in the corporate world. The banks are data-mining their customer database for marketing purposes, telecommunication companies are doing the same, and so forth. Do you complain about them? If so, then on what grounds is your complain is about? The data belongs to the vendor and not you nor anyone else that had voluntarily given that data to the vendor itself.

All of this comes under property rights. The right of oneself to use his/her own property for any purposes but not to conform to wishes of his/her detractors.

You have to remember that you have no rights at all to other people's property, tangible, intellectual or otherwise, simple as that. It doesn't violate your right a single iota if you don't use a bank, use a telephone, use Google, use Facebook. Why, these services do belong to their rightful owners and their shareholders and not the potential consumers such as you, myself or anyone else.

So nobody should be surprised that we're being monitored and mined by Google or anyone else. Many people are thrilled to be turning away from fee-based desktop apps from Microsoft to embrace free apps like Zoho and Google Documents.

For all the things that Microsoft has done over the years, they havent been snooping in our Excel spreadsheets. That's a nice side benefit of paying for your productivity application.

Free isnt really free. It might be free temporarily, but eventually we're all going to have to pay down the line.

Buddy
http://wordspicturesweb.wordpress.com

If I choose to engage with a company and they record that encounter for analysis, I'm fine with that. If I stay in a hotel, it doesn't mean I'm granting them the right to go through my luggage that I store in their room.

I do think there is data that I willingly give to companies, which they can use how they see fit. I also think there is data that I do not willingly give to businesses. And, just because it is accessible to them, doesn't mean I'm giving them permission to do so. Remember, Falafulu, we're not talking about Google recording my transaction data from my AdWords account. We are talking about them mining my personal information (email, private documents, etc.) that they are hosting, which I have not given them permission to do. I see them as having no more right to go through my stuff that I would give to a landlord or hotel employee just because I'm staying on their property.

Your hardcore allegence to corporations is scary to say the least. Whether you like to think about it or not, there are times when businesses do bad things. They are not infallible. It is our job as customers to alert them of lines we don't want them to cross. Maybe they crossed it thinking it was ok. But, if we don't define boundaries, then we won't have any. Maybe you are cool with that, but I certainly don't want to live in a world where businesses can run wild.

That's why it's good to have competition, a single company or entity should only know so much. There are definitely active projects at Google utilizing the enormous amount of data they have that push the boundary/definition of privacy.

#1) Justin, you first have to demonstrate ownership here before you go onto irrelevant argument. Who legally owns the data in the first place? You or Google? If you think that it is yours, then show me a document on the internet that says that the data is legally yours. Legally, it means it is bound by law of contract, ie, you could take Google to court over any tempering with your (property of yours happens to be on their server) or violations of agreement. If you can show with a concrete proof that the data legally belongs to users (including yourself), then you have a point. If however, that you can't prove that the ownership of the data belongs to users, then you should stop spewing out layman's argument, because you knew clearly what I was advocating here and that is property rights.

If Google owns the data as you might have mistaken that it is yours which just happens to be on someone's server, then they have every right (legally) to do whatever they want to do with that data.

Justin Kisner said...
I see them as having no more right to go through my stuff that I would give to a landlord or hotel employee just because I'm staying on their property...

#2) Unless that you prove data ownership to me, from #1), then your argument on this point is irrelevant.

Now, can you see my point here that I am trying to highlight? You must understand the difference between legal activities & unethical activities. It might be unethical for Google to mine users data, but it is completely within their legal rights to do so, since the data (their property) belongs to them. I think you're arguing about ethics and not what's legal under the law. Property rights is not ethics. Now, can you see the difference? I hope so.

What point?

Presumably yes, what Google is doing is perfectly legal. But that's not really the issue in this discussion, and never has been.

The question is do we as non-Google-employees *trust* Google not to abuse their intimate knowledge of our data when it's within their legal power to do so and if doing so would be profitable to them?

For myself, no, I don't, and I wish like heck we had an open-source, distributed search solution so I don't need to give Google so much data. But search is one thing, and app hosting is another. There's no way I'm signing up for GMail or Google Docs. There's trust, and then there's handing that nice man on the street with the sandwich board the keys to my house because he's always so polite and wears such a sharp suit.

Nate, you have just jumped in here without reading carefully. How about you stop, read, think carefully the issue of the arguments & counter arguments here because obviously you didn't seem to read.

Let me clarify it for you. You stated OUR data..., for Christ's sake, I have challenged Justin Kisner to produced evidence the data belongs to you. Unless you can prove that it your data, then your argument is completely irrelevant here. You (including Justin Kisner) keep going on about WE, OUR, etc... How about next time you address it in 3rd person, such as THEIRS (Google's legally owned data & property), until you can show otherwise that the data is yours, you're wasting my time in trying to debate here.

Now, that is your first step. Prove that the data is yours, before we continue on the discussion.

Nate said...
There's no way I'm signing up for GMail or Google Docs.

Well done. I hope that you would have seen the point I made in my previous messages. Here is what I said in one...

Falafulu said...
Remember, users chooses to use Google's services voluntarily in the first place. Google didn't force them with a gun to use their services.

You can't voluntary give something to Google and then moan about it. Google didn't use force. Users voluntary went to use Google's services, therefore relinquishing their rights to that data to Google. Anyone who signs up to Google's services who doesn't understand this but moaned about it afterwards must be pretty thick not to foresee some unwanted outcome in their being voluntary signing with Google.

So, congratulation for not using Google, after all it is your choice anyway, because Google never coerced you to sign up with them.

We must apply commonsense here and not be led to moan misguided our misguided emotions.

I think we've beaten this dead horse enough and have now derailed this thoughtful post into a question of proof of ownership or whether or not Google has broken the law.

To echo Nate here, this was never a legal question. Read my first reply to you.

This was a chance for users to think about the implications of using a service that hosts and could mine their data. It is a question of personal responsibility and one for *users* to ponder when selecting their communication options. The Google example is merely illustrative to me, not the literal focus.

I would love to participate in further discussion about data integrity (privacy) when using SaaS solutions. Not whether or not Google broke the law in this example.