[ICTs-and-Society] EPIC and googlezon

[Charles Ess]

Hi all,
With apologies for running silent on these fascinating and most useful
discussion (lots of reasons, most having to do with unhappy university
reorganization and a resulting, um, interest in finding another position)
At least let me share another video that captures some of the privacy
concerns, though in a considerably more humorous way (well, sorta), FWIW.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2DY6jWT2a4&feature=player_embedded>

Sharing is caring.  Enjoy!
- charles

On 3/1/12 8:08 PM, "Leah Lievrouw" <llievrou at ucla.edu> wrote:

> Hi everyone, yes "EPIC 2014" is quite a nice parody, I've used it quite
> a bit in my courses over the last few years and you'd be amazed how
> often the undergraduate students don't realize it's satire!!
> 
> Leah Lievrouw
> 
> On 2/29/12 5:58 PM, Megan Boler wrote:
>> A video highly pertinent to Christian's apt discussion of Google's new
>> "contradictory" privacy policy...this "sci-fi" video (good for teaching btw)
>> went viral 'way back' in 2004  before YouTube, spot on regarding an
>> envisioned "googlezon"....(we interviewed him in 2006 and i recall one of the
>> videomakers, robin sloan, said the video was originally a powerpoint talk:).
>> He and Matt's ( the video co-producer's) dayjob included educating librarians
>> about things digital, and their motivation for producing these ideas was to
>> try to convey to all generations of librarians, how dramatic the shift to the
>> digital. many of you will have seen this
>> 
>> i suppose this now seems relatively credulous and like 'real life' for
>> students now, compared to when we showed this to audiences in 2006 and it
>> still seemed (to many) like a distant dystopia.
>> 
>> http://www.robinsloan.com/epic/
>> 
>> Megan
>> www.meganboler.net
>> ________________________________________
>> From: discussion-bounces at lists.icts-and-society.net
>> [discussion-bounces at lists.icts-and-society.net] On Behalf Of Christian Fuchs
>> [christian.fuchs at uti.at]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:27 PM
>> To: discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net; List Aoir; nettime-l at kein.org
>> Subject: [ICTs-and-Society] Blogpost about Google¹s ³New³ Terms of Use and
>> Privacy Policy: Old Exploitation and User Commodification in a New
>> Ideological Skin
>> 
>> http://fuchs.uti.at/789/
>> 
>> Google¹s ³New³ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy: Old Exploitation and
>> Commodification in a New Ideological Skin
>> 
>> On March 1st, 2012, Google changed its terms of use and privacy policy.
>> What has changed? Has something changed?
>> 
>> Google¹s general terms of services that were valid from April 16, 2007,
>> until the end of February 2012, applied to all of its services. It
>> thereby enabled the economic surveillance of a diverse multitude of user
>> data that was collected from various services and user activities for
>> the purpose of targeted advertising: ³Some of the Services are supported
>> by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions.
>> These advertisements may be targeted to the content of information
>> stored on the Services, queries made through the Services or other
>> information².
>> 
>> Google specified in its old privacy policy (valid from October 20, 2011,
>> until the end of February 2012) that the company ³may collect the
>> following types of information²: personal registration information,
>> cookies that store ³user preferences², log information (requests,
>> interactions with a service, IP address, browser type, browser language,
>> date and time of requests, cookies that uniquely identify a user), user
>> communications, location data, unique application number. Google said
>> that it was using Cookies for ³improving search results and ad
>> selection², which is only a euphemism for saying that Google sells user
>> data for advertising purposes. ³Google also uses cookies in its
>> advertising services to help advertisers and publishers serve and manage
>> ads across the web and on Google services². To ³serve and manage ads²
>> means to exploit user data for economic purposes. The Google ad
>> preferences manager displays the user interests and preferences that are
>> collected by the use of cookies and used for targeted advertising.
>> 
>> Google¹s old privacy policy specified that ³Google uses the DoubleClick
>> advertising cookie on AdSense partner sites and certain Google services
>> to help advertisers and publishers serve and manage ads across the web².
>> Google used DoubleClick, a commercial advertising server owned by Google
>> since 2007 that collects and networks data about usage behaviour on
>> various websites, sells this data, and helps providing targeted
>> advertising ­ for networking the data it holds about its users with data
>> about these users¹ browsing and usage behaviour on other web platforms.
>> There was only an opt-out option from this form of networked economic
>> surveillance. Google¹s privacy policy provided a link to this option.
>> Opt-out options are always rather unlikely to be used because in many
>> cases they are hidden inside of long privacy and usage terms and are
>> therefore only really accessible to knowledgeable users. Many Internet
>> corporations avoid opt-in advertising solutions because such mechanisms
>> can drastically reduce the potential number of users participating in
>> advertising. That Google helped advertisers to ³serve and manage ads
>> across the web² means that it used the DoubleClick server for collecting
>> user behaviour data from all over the WWW and using this data for
>> targeted advertising. Google¹s exploitation of users is not only limited
>> to its own sites, its surveillance process is networked, spreads and
>> tries to reach all over the WWW.
>> 
>> The analysis shows that Google makes use of privacy policies and terms
>> of service that enable the large-scale economic surveillance of users
>> for the purpose of capital accumulation. Advertising clients of Google
>> that use Google AdWords are able to target ads for example by country,
>> exact location of users and distance from a certain location, language
>> users speak, the type of device used: (desktop/laptop computer, mobile
>> device (specifiable)), the mobile phone operator used (specifiable),
>> gender, or age group.
>> 
>> On January 25, 2012, the EU released a proposal for a General Data
>> Protection Regulation that defines a right of individuals not to be
>> subject to profiling, which is understood as  ³automated processing
>> intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to this natural
>> person or to analyse or predict in particular the natural person¹s
>> performance at work, economic situation, location, health, personal
>> preferences, reliability or behaviour³ (article 20, 1). Targeted
>> advertising is such a form of profiling. According to (the planned)
>> article 20, 2 (c), profiling is allowed if the data subject consents
>> according to the conditions of article 7, which says that if the consent
>> is given as part of a written declaration (as e.g. a web site¹s terms of
>> use or privacy policy), the ³consent must be presented distinguishable
>> in its appearance from this other matter³ (article 7, 2). The regulation
>> furthermore proposes a right of citizens to be forgotten (article 17),
>> which also includes that third parties should be informed and asked to
>> erase the same data (article 17, 2), the right to data portability
>> (article 18), which e.g. means that all personal data must be exportable
>> from Facebook to other social networking sites. A further suggested
>> regulation is that by default only the minimum of data that is necessary
>> for obtaining the purpose of processing is collected and stored (article
>> 23). Fines of up to 1 000 000 Euros and 2% of the annual worldwide
>> turnover of a company are implemented (article 79). The EU regulation to
>> a certain extent limits targeted advertising by the right to be
>> forgotten and the special form in which consensus must be given, it does
>> however not make targeted advertising a pure opt-in option, which were a
>> more efficient way for protecting consumers¹ and users¹ privacy.
>> 
>> As a result of the announcement of the EU Data Protection Regulation,
>> Google over night announced the change and unification of all its
>> privacy policies and the change of its terms of use. In the new terms of
>> use, the use of targeted advertising is no longer defined in the terms
>> of use, but the privacy policy: ³We use the information we collect from
>> all of our services to provide, maintain, protect and improve them, to
>> develop new ones, and to protect Google and our users. We also use this
>> information to offer you tailored content ­ like giving you more
>> relevant search results and ads². Although Google presents its new
>> policies as major privacy enhancement (³a simpler, more intuitive Google
>> experience. [Š]  we¹re consolidating more than 60 into our main Privacy
>> Policy. Regulators globally have been calling for shorter, simpler
>> privacy policies ­ and having one policy covering many different
>> products is now fairly standard across the web²
>> (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/updating-our-privacy-policies-and-ter
>> ms.html).
>> 
>> The core of the regulations ­ the automatic use of targeted advertising
>> ­ has not changed. The European Union does not require Google to base
>> targeted ads on opt-in. Google offers two opt-out options for targeted
>> ads: one can opt-out from the basing of targeted ads on a) search
>> keywords and b) visited websites that have Google ads (Ads Preferences
>> Manager, https://www.google.com/settings/ads/preferences/).
>> 
>> In the new privacy policy, ³user communications² are no longer mentioned
>> separately as collected user information. But rather content is defined
>> as part of log information: ³Log information. When you use our services
>> or view content provided by Google, we may automatically collect and
>> store certain information in server logs. This may include: details of
>> how you used our service, such as your search queries².  Search keywords
>> can be interpreted as the content of a Google search. The formulation
>> that log information is how one uses a service is vague. It can be
>> interpreted to also include all type of Google content, such as the text
>> of a gMail message or a Google+ posting.
>> 
>> In the new privacy policy, Google says: ³We may combine personal
>> information from one service with information, including personal
>> information, from other Google services ­ for example to make it easier
>> to share things with people you know. We will not combine DoubleClick
>> cookie information with personally identifiable information unless we
>> have your opt-in consent². This change is significant and reflects the
>> circumstance of the EU data protection regulation¹s third-party
>> regulation in the right to be forgotten (article 17, 2). The question if
>> DoubleClick is used for Google¹s targeted ads more or less is based on
>> the question how extensively and aggressively Google tries to make users
>> to opt-in to DoubleClick. The effect is that Google will no longer be
>> able to automatically use general Internet user data collected by
>> DoubleClick. However, the unification of the privacy policies and the
>> provision that information from all Google services and all Google ads
>> on external sites can be combined allows Google to base targeted
>> advertising on user profiles that contain a broad range of user data.
>> The sources of user surveillance are now mainly Google services. As
>> Google spreads its ad service all over the web, this surveillance is
>> still networked and spread out. Google tries to compensate the limited
>> use of DoubleClick data for targeted advertising with an integration of
>> the data that it collects itself.
>> 
>> Concerning the use of sensitive data, both the old and the new privacy
>> policy specify: ³We require opt-in consent for the sharing of any
>> sensitive personal information².  In addition, the new policy says:
>> ³When showing you tailored ads, we will not associate a cookie or
>> anonymous identifier with sensitive categories, such as those based on
>> race, religion, sexual orientation or health². Targeted ads use data
>> from all Google services, including content data².
>> 
>> The proposed EU Data Protection Regulation says that the processing of
>> sensitive data (race, ethnicity, political opinions, religion, beliefs,
>> trade-union membership, genetic data, health data, sex life, criminal
>> convictions or related security measures) is forbidden, except if the
>> data subject consents (article 9). Google continues to use content data
>> (such as search queries) for targeting advertising that is based on
>> algorithms that make an automatic classification of interests. By
>> collecting a large number of search keywords by one individual, the
>> likelihood that he or she can be personally identified increases. Search
>> keywords are furthermore linked to IP addresses that make the computers
>> of users identifiable. Algorithms can never perfectly analyze the
>> semantics of data. Therefore use of sensitive data for targeted
>> advertising cannot be avoided as long as search queries and other
>> content are automatically analyzed. Google¹s provision that it does not
>> use sensitive data for targeted ads stands in contradiction with the
>> fact that it says it uses ³details of how you used our service, such as
>> your search queries².
>> 
>> The overall changes introduced by Google¹s new privacy policies and
>> terms of use are modest, the fundamentals remains unchanged: Google uses
>> targeted advertising as a default. DoubleClick is now less likely to be
>> used for targeted advertising. Google has unified its privacy policies.
>> Whereas Google presents this move as providing more transparency (³We
>> believe this new, simpler policy will make it easier for people to
>> understand our privacy practices as well as enable Google to improve the
>> services we offer²,
>> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/updating-our-privacy-policies-and-term
>> s.html),
>> it also enables Google to base its targeted ads on a wide range of user
>> data that stem from across all its services.
>> 
>> Google claims that it does not use sensitive data for targeted ads,
>> which is contradicted by the definition of content data as log data that
>> can be used for targeted ads. Google¹s old privacy terms (version from
>> October 20, 2011) had 10 917 characters, which is an increase of 30%.
>> The main privacy terms have thereby grown in complexity, although the
>> number of privacy policies that apply to Google services was reduced
>> from more than 70 to one.
>> 
>> Google present its updated terms of use and privacy policies as new,
>> although no fundamental improvements of user privacy protection can be
>> found. The ³change² is an ideological marketing strategy aimed at
>> maintaining the stability of the exploitation of the labour of users
>> that generates value and generates Google¹s profits that in 2011
>> amounted to $8.5 billion
>> (http://www.forbes.com/global2000/#p_1_s_arank_ComputerServices_All_All).
>> Google
>> continues to automatically collect, analyse and commodify a multitude of
>> user data that is generated by searches and the use of Google services.
>> The Marxist communication scholar Dallas Smythe wrote in 1981: ³For the
>> great majority of the population [Š] 24 hours a day is work time. [Š]
>> [Audiences] work to market [Š] things to themselves². For the great
>> majority of Internet users, most of Internet use is (value-generating)
>> labour time. Internet users work on Google and other corporate platforms
>> to market things to themselves and are transformed into an Internet
>> commodity that is sold to targeted advertising clients in order to
>> accumulate capital in the amount of billions of Euros.
>> 
>> In a response letter to the EU Article 29 Data Protection Working Party
>> (concerning Google¹s updated policies and terms; see
>> http://www.edri.org/book/export/html/1225), Google¹s Global Privacy
>> Counsel Peter Fleischer writes that ³we are not selling our users¹
>> data². One wonders where Google¹s $US 8.5 billion profits come from,
>> except from the commodification of the data results of users¹ activities?
>> 
>> The EU Article 29 Data Protection Working Party asked the French
>> National Commission for Computing and Civil Liberties (CNIL) to analyse
>> Google¹s new policies. In a letter to Google, CNIL shows deep concern
>> and said that ³our preliminary analysis shows that Google¹s new policy
>> does not meet the requirements of the European Directive on Data
>> Protection [Š] Moreover, rather than promoting transparency, the terms
>> of the new policy and the fact that Google claims publicly that it will
>> combine data across services raises fears about Google¹s actual
>> practices. Our preliminary investigation shows that it is extremely
>> difficult to know exactly which data is combined between which services
>> for which purposes, even for trained privacy professionals. In addition,
>> Google is using cookies (among other tools) for these combinations and
>> in this regard, it is not clear how Google aims to comply with the
>> principle of consent laid down in Article 5(3) of the revised ePrivacy
>> Directive, when applicable. The CNIL and the EU data protection
>> authorities are deeply concerned about the combination of personal data
>> across services: they have strong doubts about the lawfulness and
>> fairness of such processing, and about its compliance with European Data
>> Protection legislation². Big Brother Watch reports that only 12% of the
>> Google users have read the new policy and that 65% are not aware that
>> the changes have now come into effect. The initiative says: ³Google is
>> putting advertiser¹s interests before user privacy and should not be
>> rushing ahead before the public understand what the changes will mean².
>> 
>> According to the proposed new EU Data Protection Regulation
>> (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/120125_en.htm),
>> Google¹s exploitation of users is perfectly legal. That it is legal does
>> however not mean that we cannot consider Google commodification as a
>> violation of user/consumer/Internet workers¹ privacy, but rather that
>> the EU¹s suggested legal provisions do not provide enough protection for
>> users. The only way forward is to legally require all Internet companies
>> (and companies in general) to necessarily make targeted advertising an
>> opt-in option by law, which would give users and consumers more control.
>> Implementing such a provision requires not only courage, it also
>> requires not to be afraid of organised business interests. It is however
>> the only way for putting privacy interests first. Today, profit stands
>> over privacy protection and therefore over people. Google is one of the
>> best examples for this circumstance. Google¹s ³new² privacy policy is
>> not new at all and should consequently best be renamed to ³privacy
>> violation policy² or ³user exploitation policy².
>> 
>> Related publication:
>> Fuchs, Christian. 2011. A contribution to the critique of the political
>> economy of Google. Fast Capitalism 8 (1).
>> http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/8_1/fuchs8_1.html
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discussion mailing list
>> Discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net
>> 
http://lists.icts-and-society.net/listinfo.cgi/discussion-icts-and-society.ne>>
t
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discussion mailing list
>> Discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net
>> 
http://lists.icts-and-society.net/listinfo.cgi/discussion-icts-and-society.ne>>
t