Feeds

Google tells Congress it's not Phorm

'Our users trust us'

5 things you didn’t know about cloud backup

Google wants you to know that in targeting online ads, it doesn't use Phorm-like deep packet inspection. But it still refuses to acknowledge its own massive threat to the privacy of humankind.

Early last week, amidst the ongoing controversy over data tracking ad firms like Phorm and NebuAd, some Congressional big wigs asked thirty American ISPs if they'd ever used customer browsing data as a means of targeting online ads. And just for good measure, they tossed the same question at Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft.

We all know that Google uses customer browsing data as means of targeting online ads. But it does things a little differently than a Phorm-equipped ISP. And on Friday, Google responded with a letter (PDF) that promptly points out this nothing less than obvious distinction.

"Given your Committee's recent focus on deep-packet inspection in connection with advertising, we feel it important to state clearly and for the record that Google does not deliver advertising based on deep packet inspection," Google public policy and government affairs director Alan Davidson said in a letter to the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and other high-ranking lawmakers.

Google didn't actually badmouth deep-packet inspection - "we don't comment on third-parties," the search giant likes to tell us - but it seemed to imply that it frowns on the Phorm/NebuAd model - which does not require an opt-in. The next paragraph read like this: "In our quickly evolving business environment, ensuring that we can keep our users' trust is an essential constant for building the best possible products. With every Google product, we work hard to earn and keep that trust with a longstanding commitment to protect the privacy of our users' personal information. The bedrock of our privacy practices are three fundamentals: providing transparency, choice, and security."

Feel free to chuckle. Yes, unlike a Phorm or a NebuAd, Google is something you use by choice (assuming that other search engines actually provide an alternative). And it's not grabbing your surfing data from a third-party. But the sheer breadth of the data it collects is a problem in its own right. Google can talk about transparency, trust, and security all it likes. But no security is perfect. And a subpoena could nab that data at any time. ®

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
6 Obvious Reasons Why Facebook Will Ban This Article (Thank God)
Clampdown on clickbait ... and El Reg is OK with this
So, Apple won't sell cheap kit? Prepare the iOS garden wall WRECKING BALL
It can throw the low cost race if it looks to the cloud
EE fails to apologise for HUGE T-Mobile outage that hit Brits on Friday
Customer: 'Please change your name to occasionally somewhere'
Time Warner Cable customers SQUEAL as US network goes offline
A rude awakening: North Americans greeted with outage drama
We need less U.S. in our WWW – Euro digital chief Steelie Neelie
EC moves to shift status quo at Internet Governance Forum
BT customers face broadband and landline price hikes
Poor punters won't be affected, telecoms giant claims
prev story

Whitepapers

Endpoint data privacy in the cloud is easier than you think
Innovations in encryption and storage resolve issues of data privacy and key requirements for companies to look for in a solution.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Advanced data protection for your virtualized environments
Find a natural fit for optimizing protection for the often resource-constrained data protection process found in virtual environments.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.