Google exec defends search snooping, location tracking
Apple's Maps app, however, could get you killed
Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery
Google may store your search history and know where you are, but unless you've been searching for tips on how to suffocate someone, your privacy is secure. How do we know? Because according to Google's Chief Technology Advocate Michael Jones, "We're nice people as well as business people."
Appearing on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's One on One interview show, Jones attempted not only to allay fears about his company's targeting of ads and information based on search history, but also argued that Google deserves more trust than government.
"We try to gather insight in order to help you better, but the insight we gather is very simple," he told his interlocutor. "We say, 'Here's a user with this Gmail account, and when they do searches, and they search for Paris Hilton, they want to see pictures of a girl or they want to see hotel bookings.' Later on when you search for Paris Hilton, we know which to show you."
Exactly how Google knows whether you were searching for Ms. Hilton's infamous "1 Night in Paris" sex video or simply want to spend one night in Paris, France, Jones didn't say, but presumably Google's equally infamous algorithms aggregate your search requests to make its decisions.
But that insight into your interests is a good thing, Jones contends. "I think everybody sort of secretly dreams of having a butler or a personal valet like you might see some royalty have," he said. "We can build that for you in your phone. We need to know a little bit about your preferences, which kinds of restaurants you like, what shoe size you have, and we can help you know things."
Of course, when approached by the police, Google can help them know things, as well. "It is true that we gather information," he said. "And sometimes, for example, storing your search history, you might have searched for how to suffocate someone, and then it comes up in a trial that somebody gets suffocated, maybe you're accused. The police want us to tell them if you've searched for suffocation techniques."
And, Jones said, Google will comply with certain such government requests, but only when they're forced to do so by court order.
He also said that Google's location-tracking was thoroughly benign, and only used as a means to help you. "Already, when you walk around, at Google we kind of know where you're at," he said. "And we can say, 'Oh, it's lunchtime, there's a restaurant you like just around the corner that has a special on."
He did admit, however, that some folks might find such surveillance a bit off-putting. "That's either helpful, or that's frightening," he said. "It depends on how you like that."
But, of course, one should like being tracked and guided by Google, and one should trust them, says Jones. "I think what's important is that you only work with people that you trust. I certainly trust Apple and I trust Google – I trust Microsoft, for that matter. These are not corrupt organizations, these are nice people trying to serve you."
Jones may trust the nice people at Apple – but only up to a point. When deflecting one question about whether users of Google services should be concerned about all the information being collected and stored about them, he joked, "I think you should be worried about getting where you want to go if you use Apple Maps, to be honest. You're taking your life in your own hands there."
And if you do find Google's information-collection frightening, you can simply take your business elsewhere, he said. "Everyone that uses Google does it voluntarily. You do a search at Google? You could have gone somewhere else. You came to us. If you felt we might betray you, you wouldn't come to us."
And there is, of course, the bottom line for Google to think about. "We stand to lose 30 billion dollars or more the moment people lose trust in us," Jones said.
But, Jones asserted, Google is eminently trustworthy – more trustworthy than your government, in fact. "I think you should decide the following thing: do you want the world's information available to you? And if you do, it's gotta come from one of two sources: either your government – or like the United Nations or some other government – or its gotta come from a company," he said.
"So who do you trust more, Google or your administration? That's a good question. Who do you trust more, Google or your mayor?"
To Jones, the answer is simple: Google. "We have a pretty unblemished record of doing our very best to serve every human," he said. "We serve truth and comprehensiveness to every human as best we possibly can."
And how well is Google doing in its noble service of truth? "So far," Jones said, "I think we get an 'A' – or even maybe 'A+'."
The Reg would like to point its dear readers to the qualifier Jones added to his self-congratulatory grading: "So far." ®
Bootnote
Interestingly, Jones' call for unquestioning trust of Google's intentions come hard on the heels of Microsoft's latest ad in its "Scroogled" series of attack ads against the Mountain View search giant, this one targeting Google's scanning of Gmail messages for ad-targeting tidbits:
COMMENTS
"I think everybody sort of secretly dreams of having a butler or a personal valet like you might see some royalty have,"
Slow down with the "everybody" part there bub. While I would like someone to bring me coffee; there's no fucking way I would tell them all my thoughts, plans and fears in anything like the sort of detail you're attempting to extract involuntarily from every person on the planet.
And there's a great deal of difference between voluntarily confiding information to an individual you have come to trust (and you know where they live); and involuntarily confiding in a foreign corporation.
"We're nice people as well as business people."
It's always healthy to start the weekend with a good belly laugh.
What a load of self serving tosh..
Full marks for marketing, but the facts tend to conflict with this version of reality..
We're nice people as well as business people.
As far as I can see, Schmidt isn't..
'Here's a user with this Gmail account, and when they do searches, and they search for Paris Hilton, they want to see pictures of a girl or they want to see hotel bookings.' Later on when you search for Paris Hilton, we know which to show you."
And what if people don't WANT Google to have that insight?
I think everybody sort of secretly dreams of having a butler or a personal valet like you might see some royalty have
Nope, I fail to have delusions of grandeur, nor do I appreciate someone else assuming that about me.
you might have searched for how to suffocate someone, and then it comes up in a trial that somebody gets suffocated, maybe you're accused. The police want us to tell them if you've searched for suffocation techniques.
And here is where we come off the rails proper. This is known as circumstantial evidence, and by taking it out of context in a way that suits the abuser it can be made to mean all sorts of things. For instance, you could leave out "prevention of" and get a whole different picture. Google is dealing in statistics, and given enough data and a skewed query set you can prove anything you want. Imagine a male hearing about the rape drug and wanting to know what on earth that is about? Next thing you know, he gets accused of such an offense because he happened to be near a club where this happened a couple of days later - thanks to Google location services. Guilty until proven innocent.
Google will comply with certain such government requests, but only when they're forced to do so by court order or when it's in the business interest to collaborate. Didn't they call in their NSA friends when they had a problem cracking the Chinese market? And, as a US company, Google can always be compelled under the US Patriot Act to cough up data - the same issue Microsoft has admitted to recently.
He also said that Google's location-tracking was thoroughly benign, and only used as a means to help you. Of course, he's hardly going to state otherwise or he'd be doing a Ratners..
he joked, "I think you should be worried about getting where you want to go if you use Apple Maps, to be honest. You're taking your life in your own hands there." Defamation lawsuit in 3 .. 2 .. 1
And if you do find Google's information-collection frightening, you can simply take your business elsewhere, he said. "Everyone that uses Google does it voluntarily. You do a search at Google? You could have gone somewhere else. You came to us. If you felt we might betray you, you wouldn't come to us."
Actually , on reviewing statements made by Google in the helpfiles of some of their services, there are entries in there that can be comfortably considered deceptive. This means that people may use Google because they have been misled about the risk, which is also what this infamous letter from 27 different countries is all about - their Privacy Policy sucks.
We stand to lose 30 billion dollars or more the moment people lose trust in us,
At last, a honest statement, but it also shows you what incentive there is to paint things in a nicer light than what they really are. Google has been caught a number of times now on being rather creative with the truth - that does NOT inspire trust.
"So who do you trust more, Google or your administration? That's a good question. Who do you trust more, Google or your mayor?" To Jones, the answer is simple: Google. "We have a pretty unblemished record of doing our very best to serve every human," he said. "We serve truth and comprehensiveness to every human as best we possibly can."
There is too much regulatory activity involving Google to invest any trust in the company. In addition, the public bleatings of Schmidt on privacy don't exactly help that desired "benign" picture..
So, a rating for Google? D-, at best.

IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM implementer’s checklist
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring