Will Privacy Concerns Kill Google Books Settlement?
Early this morning a coalition of authors, publishers and privacy advocates filed an objection to the Google search settlement case and surprisingly it had little to do with copyright or market control. Notable objectors such as the EFF, ACLU, Samuelson Clinic and authors Cory Doctorow and Jonathan Lethem are worried about privacy. According to a blog post by the EFF, the group is concerned that monitored book search and habit-based tracking could deter readership.
According to the EFF, "Google's system could monitor what books users search for, how much of the books they read, and how long they spend on various pages. Google could then combine information about readers' habits and interests with additional information it collects from other Google services, creating a massive digital dossier that would be vulnerable to fishing expeditions by law enforcement or civil litigants."
While groups such as the National Writers Union oppose the settlement on the grounds that Google is violating author rights, and Yahoo and Microsoft oppose the settlement for fear of a price fixing cartel, the latest objection adds new perspective.
The argument reminded us of John Battelle's "database of intentions" - an aggregated list of personal search results, page visits and bookmarks. He explains that while the database of intention lives in a number of places, four major players including Google hold the bulk of this information. He wrote, "This information represents, in aggregate form, a place holder for the intentions of humankind - a massive database of desires, needs, wants, and likes that can be discovered, supoenaed, archived, tracked, and exploited to all sorts of ends."
While this may seem like a paranoia today, it wasn't long ago that rumors surfaced of US intelligence authorities monitoring net usage to gain electronic evidence against members of al-Queda. In response, Darwinder S. Sidhu's 2007 report outlines how the majority of polled Muslim-Americans believe that their Internet activities are being monitored.
The latest Google privacy objection argues that this fear of being tracked is enough reason for consumers to change their behavior. For the complete filing download the PDF
If you thought your casual reading might have a slim chance of being subpoenaed, would you change your reading habits? Let us know in the comments below.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
The Objection has been filed. Tell Google CEO Eric Schmidt (https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1653) that you won’t pay for digital books with your privacy. Don’t let Book Search become a one-stop shop for government and third party fishing expeditions into your private life! More info at www.aclunc.org/googlebooks.
this is one of those 'it'll never happen to me' cases. it's worrying but like everybody else i would probably only stop reading stuff on google –after– the first case goes to court where somebody is convicted based on reading habits showing intent to blow up a building or something of the sort.
for now i'm still reading hardcopy, acquired through online sales and the library; both perfectly traceable.
I think that sometimes we get a little over-sensitive about the 'Big Brother' issue. Sure we are all concerned about our privacy but, as long as we are not doing anything wrong, then what's the harm in people knowing about us. I have worked for many years in HR and, as part of that, specifically in the area of inter-personal skills and teamwork. I have found that one of the main principles of effective inter-personal relations and building of mature teams is concerned with disclosure of information about yourself to others. Basically, if you don't tell them what you are really like, others will make assumptions about you, if you do tell them, then they can form opinions and direct their behaviour based on the truth and fact.
I know which I prefer, but then I beleive I don't do anything that is fundamentally misconceived, so I don't see the need to hide. Or am I missing a more subtle point?
Chris Warren
Author and Freelance Writer
Randolph's Challenge Book One - The Pendulum Swings
Most libraries destroy borrowing records for a book as soon as whoever has it returns it; once you return a book there is no way of telling whether you ever checked it out or not. It's a huge part of their belief that people should be able to read whatever they want. And there is some discussion in the library world whether circulation record requests can happen as part of the PATRIOT act, with some libraries going so far as to post signs to the effect of "There have not been any gov't requests for patron borrowing information today. Please check back tomorrow should this sign be removed" because you cannot say there has been a request made. It's too bad Google can't overlook the information that would be available with it's online books and just chalk it up to it's "don't be evil" mantra.