Google - Do No Evil has ceased to be.....

Like many people, I've been increasingly uneasy about where Google is going. There is a typical article on these concerns from the San Francisco Chronicle.

Google says it does recognize the threat. Like Microsoft a decade ago, it has dramatically scaled up its lobbying and public relations efforts. It has recently sought to partner with the industries complaining most vocally about its disruptive technologies and has given users more power to edit information stored about them.

You just know that a business that responds to concerns by bumping up its lobbying and PR push has already crossed the line. But the things that made me finally conclude that this wasn't a bumbling transgression from a clumsy but friendly large organisation was when Eric Schmidt said (as reported in the Huffpo):

CNBC's Mario Bartiromo asked CEO Schmidt in her December 3, 2009 interview: "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they?" Schmidt's reply hints that if there's scandalous information out there about you, it's your problem, not Google's. Schmidt tells Baritoromo:

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

That has been the rallying cry of small time despots and people with unsavoury motives throughout the ages. It rings of the way the Nazis, Stalinists and Stasi grasped and kept power. (Yes, after 1,989 posts on Broadstuff we finally reach for Godwin's Law )

Which means, when you look at things like the new idea of Personalised search, you need to look at it very carefully, as Search Engine Land observes:

This isn’t the personalized search system of old, where Google only personalized results if people were signed in. In the new personalized search, millions of Google users have been opted-in to the system even if they aren’t signed-in using a Google account. While people can opt-out of personalized results, I doubt many will do so.

And take it up a level - this is by and large an assault on user privacy, which many of the "Web 2.0" companies are indulging in, as that is the golden motherload of value for them. And not just for them. As Huffo notes:

He [Eric Schmidt] expands on his answer, adding that the your information could be made available not only to curious searchers or prying friends, but also to the authorities, and that there's little recourse for people worried about unintentionally "oversharing" online:

"But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And [...] we're all subject, in the US, to the Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."

What to do? Well, one of the lessons in observing States that move to despotism is that there comes a time when its too late to get out, but before that there are a number of events when the warning signs of future intentions become clear. At that point you know its time to get out. To my mind, this is that time for Google. That statement from Eric Schmidt makes it very clear where their heads are at.

Caveat Emptor........

Update - nice rebuttal by Bruce Schneier - here is the start:

Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.

We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.

Read the rest too, its very well articulated.