[ICTs-and-Society] Blogpost about Google’s “New“ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy: Old Exploitation and User Commodification in a New Ideological Skin

[Christian Fuchs]

From: James Losey losey at newamerica.net

Hi Christian,

Thank you for sending this blog post. I think providing Google's new 
policies within the context of EU regulation is particularly helpful. In 
a globally networked world, the multi-jurisdiction that online services 
face is both a challenge for companies and an opportunity to push for 
more user control over the online public sphere.

However, I would like to push back against a couple notions in your 
piece. First, much like television or radio has been supported by 
advertising, so too are many online services. The question we are 
grappling with is not whether or not the service is supported by 
advertising but what are reasonable limits on the use of personally 
identifiable information for advertising. Secondly, opt-out is 
technically an option, but from a behavioral economics standpoint has 
much higher costs than most users will chose. The question is really 
about what types of controls should be available for users.

With respect to Google's recent change, you are absolutely correct in 
noting the "large-scale economic surveillance" of users, after all, 
Google is essentially an advertising company and earns 97% of revenue 
from advertising, but it is worth defining that transaction. First, 
Google profits from serving adds to users and naturally would profit 
more from offering more effective advertising. However, Google is also 
potentially provides a better product to consumers by tailoring 
services. For example, if I am able to use Google search to more quickly 
access the information I want then I am more likely to use Google as my 
primary search engine. Another example would be location based data from 
a mobile device allowing location based services, such as locating me on 
a map, or to use Google's example, telling me that I am 15 minutes away 
from a meeting that starts in 15 minutes.

In this two-sided market we have two clear values of user data. First, 
user data can lead to tailored serves. Secondly, user data can also 
provide better tailored advertisements. Both support the service, as one 
can lead to more user value while the other provides more value per user 
to Google. Essentially, user data is the currency that supports the 
transaction to otherwise "free" services online.

Now lets look at Google's new policy. They are simplifying 60 services 
into a single privacy policy while at the same time noting that they 
will be sharing data between various Google services. This is Google's 
eclosion - their transition from a variety of different services that 
share a log-in, yet have at times have different data collection, into a 
single integrated service. Most notably, this will mean the sharing of 
data between Google's web history and YouTube history which is 
significant because Google is the largest search engine and the largest 
video hosting website in the world. From my conversations with Google 
staff, I have confirmed that this step will not include combining 
DoubleClick data. (In fact, this would be in violation of a Federal 
Trade Commission order here in the U.S.)

 From a business standpoint, this transition makes sense. Two of 
Google's major competitors are striving for integrated experiences. 
Apple offers a vertically integrated experience on iOS devices and is 
pushing the same App store restrictions onto OSX computers through 
Gatekeeperon the next version of their operating system. Facebook is 
pushing to create the next generation of the online portal - the very 
same that was rejected in the 90s - by offering applications and media 
within Facebook. However, by integrating a "like" button on a large 
number of websites, Facebook has also made a major play to collect user 
data on user web browsing.

Google has responded to this competitive threat through their "+1 
"button (which offers the same web browsing tracking as the "like" 
button) as well as the intent to transition into a company that offers 
an integrated experience. The commercial pressures of the online 
marketplace are to maximize, as you say, "economic surveillance" and 
Google's new policy is a clear intent to become underlying platform 
through which users interact with other online content.

As I argue with my colleague Thomas Gideon, the problem here is not 
whether or not Google offers an "opt-out." After all, saying users must 
accept new policies or choose another service is a bully's pulpit. Even 
though Google offers the ability to download all your data and leave 
(although this is a commendable step considering the other players in 
the space) users have considerable sunk costs in users log-ins for 
YouTube, email, and other Google services. Additionally, once you log 
into a single Google service you are automatically logged into other 
services - it is entirely unreasonable to expect that someone will be 
chatting or emailing in one window and log-out in order to view a video. 
What Google is doing is "forcibly bridging services without the choice 
of a partial opt-out is an attempt by Google to leverage user dependency 
on some services to increase the usage of others—most notably Google+." 
In other words, depending on a users use of Gmail or YouTube to track 
all web browsing history.  Because in analog people interact with 
different spaces in different ways, what Google should offer is the 
ability for a user to control their online identity - ie, the profile 
created by Google - in different services. User may decide that they 
would like to keep separate profiles for web history vs. YouTube, or 
they may not. However, the current state of Google privacy controls is 
painfully services specific while Google is pushing a policy for an 
integrated service. I would argue that tools should offer nuanced 
control of user identity within an integrated space.

Moving forward, I think its worth accepting the fact the online model is 
predicated on the exchange of user data for services. But there are some 
components worth exploring.

One component is to question data collection. This includes regulatory 
approaches to limiting the type of data that can be collected by 
intermediaries, as well as the length of time this data can be stored 
for. Data has a value for users as well as services, after all location 
data can aid mobile phone calls while travelling in a car while search 
data can allow online services to be tailored to users interests. 
However, these data silos can create concerns over the ability to forget 
past history or the ability for law enforcement to easily access 
detailed history without adequate due process or other limits.

A second component is to explore the transparency of the exchange. To 
what extent are consumer aware of the transaction, and the extent that 
data is collected. From a regulatory standpoint, some approaches are to 
clarify this exchange without providing meaningful opportunities for 
consumers. This Joy of Tech cartoon lucidly illustrates one approach to 
consumer "protections" that obviously falls short. Transparency is 
obviously necessary but not sufficient.

A third component is the level of controls. In the United States, both 
through initiatives of the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) and the 
W3C standards setting body, there are discussions of a "Do Not Track" 
header. Theoretically, the header would allow a user to send a clear 
signal that they would not like to be tracked. While there are technical 
methods for circumventing this signal it does provide an opportunity for 
regulatory enforcement. Unfortunately, the DAA process which recently 
got White House support would only block advertsing tracking not web 
browsing which I think is disingenuous. Rather, what I would like to see 
is actually an implementation of Google Circles for online web tracking. 
Google Circles is an interesting approach for social networks -- a clear 
way to define different categories of social interaction and what types 
of data they will have access to. I think it would valuable for users to 
have similar controls for their interactions with different websites or 
online spaces.

Finally, a forth component is exploring consumer harms to data 
collection. In your email you linked to a paper where you detail the 
political economy of Google. However, I think it would be worth breaking 
down where Google's revenue comes from. Based on this breakdown, 
two-thirds of Google's revenue comes from four sources: Insurance, 
loans, mortgage, and attorneys. At least in the United States, these are 
some industries that have factions actively take advantage of different 
communities. For example, the current recession is largely caused by 
abuses in the mortgage industry. It is worth exploring if traditionally 
marginalized populations are likewise marginalized through the 
personalization of advertisements online. Superficial research suggests 
that it is indeed the case that racial minorities in the United States 
are targeted by different advertisements in the United States but this 
is clearly an area that requires more research.

I look forward to exploring these issues further,

James