Someone’s been reading your e-mail. They know what you’ve been looking at online. They almost certainly have a photograph of your house. If you’ve got a smartphone, they even know where you’ve been and what you’ll be doing next week.
It’s not a new hacking saga, though. It’s the standard business practices of Internet staple Google, which from Thursday, is, for the first time, able to join together everything they know about you to customize its services and better hone advertising.
There’s a mantra in certain online communities that says that if you’re getting a service for free, you are not that company’s customer you’re the product. Google’s core product is its huge wealth of information on the people who use its services, which allows for the sale of highly targeted and effective advertisements to its users.
The company certainly has no shortage of information to collect. Google has a 78 percent share of the search engine market, dwarfing by far its nearest rival Baidu, the Chinese search operator. Around 350 million people use its Gmail product, and some 3 billion videos are played every day on Google-owned YouTube.
Google has around half of the global smartphone market, and can collect location information from the devices. It even has a fifth of all Internet browsers, and almost half of the online advertising share.
The search giant has been able to use the troves of information collected from these platforms for a long time. Google’s computers “read” the content of all its users’ e-mails to hone the adverts that run alongside. Search engine history is used to learn about what kind of person you are and how you use the Web, to better target adverts and to deliver better results.
From this week, all of this information can be linked together. Information gained from your phone could be used to deliver a local ad in your online search results. A YouTube history consisting of karaoke singalongs may be used to inform recommendations of nearby bars on your smartphone. An e-mail to a friend saying “I’m pregnant!” could conceivably lead to some maternity-wear ads elsewhere.
Google says its changes to privacy policies are largely aimed at simplification. Each of the company’s 70-plus services has had a separate policy until now, and these are being amalgamated into one. The policy will increase Google’s ability to monetize its audience, but also improve personalization and delivery of results and contents. There is a win-win side to the changes.
But not everyone is convinced. The EU is investigating Google’s new policy to see if it complies with tough Europe-wide data protection regulations. Others are troubled by the slow creep of Google’s collated information, and how it uses it — never moving in big steps, but always advancing.
Google has run afoul of regulators on several occasions for collecting too much data. It’s Street View service, which takes pictures of millions of streets around the world and ties them with its mapping service, was taken to the supreme court in Germany for invasion of privacy last year. Google won its case, but abandoned plans to expand the service in the country, partly due to this opposition.
Street View faced another scandal when it emerged that private details of people’s Wi-Fi networks were being collected by its camera cars, leading to all such data collection being stopped. Last year, the Guardian revealed that Google — just like Apple — had been tracking the movements of people using its Android smartphones.
One fear for Google’s rivals is that the company’s huge reach across search, mobile, video, social networking and advertising makes its vast cache of information almost impossible for smaller or more focused rivals to compete.
Its dossier of information on its users also proves a source of concern to online activists. The US-based company is subject to search orders from the US government for any user, regardless of their nationality. Like other online businesses, Google complies with orders from governments. This was seen in a high-profile subpoena for the e-mail information of the WikiLeaks supporter Jacob Applebaum. If a subpoena is sealed, a user may never even be told that their details have been handed over. Google is, however, transparent in revealing how many information requests it gets. Between January and June last year, it was asked by governments for data on 25,000 of its users worldwide, and complied in handing over the information in around 19,000 of the cases. The US government asked for details on 11,057 users, while the UK authorities asked for 1,444.
It’s possible for users to opt out of Google’s new privacy policy — at least partially — though it’s fiddly to do. This prevents the information being used for advertising purposes and means it will be made anonymous after 18 months, but it doesn’t prevent access by authorities.
A small rival search service, DuckDuckGo, is marketing itself through a policy of not tracking its users, nor tailoring results to individuals, which it says can lead to users only being shown information they agree with, rather than seeing the full plethora of opinion on the Web.
For most users, however, there is clearly an acceptance of the trade-off of receiving high-quality, innovative, Web services for free in exchange for giving the company the right to monetize the information it gathers in the process. This is the trade-off that makes the free Web work.
The concern unique to Google’s case is its scale.
For a young company, Google has come a long way. Its early and famous mantra of “don’t be evil” evolved into an “evil scale” in 2006, when the company decided that offering filtered search results in China was the lesser of two evils, and so acceptable.
The decision for Google’s users with this new privacy change, and others in the future that will doubtless follow, is whether the company remains the lesser of evils and whether they’re willing to forego the services it so ably provides if they feel it’s not.
May 6 to May 12 Those who follow the Chinese-language news may have noticed the usage of the term zhuge (豬哥, literally ‘pig brother,’ a male pig raised for breeding purposes) in reports concerning the ongoing #Metoo scandal in the entertainment industry. The term’s modern connotations can range from womanizer or lecher to sexual predator, but it once referred to an important rural trade. Until the 1970s, it was a common sight to see a breeder herding a single “zhuge” down a rustic path with a bamboo whip, often traveling large distances over rugged terrain to service local families. Not only
Ahead of incoming president William Lai’s (賴清德) inauguration on May 20 there appear to be signs that he is signaling to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and that the Chinese side is also signaling to the Taiwan side. This raises a lot of questions, including what is the CCP up to, who are they signaling to, what are they signaling, how with the various actors in Taiwan respond and where this could ultimately go. In the last column, published on May 2, we examined the curious case of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) heavyweight Tseng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦) — currently vice premier
The last time Mrs Hsieh came to Cihu Park in Taoyuan was almost 50 years ago, on a school trip to the grave of Taiwan’s recently deceased dictator. Busloads of children were brought in to pay their respects to Chiang Kai-shek (蔣中正), known as Generalissimo, who had died at 87, after decades ruling Taiwan under brutal martial law. “There were a lot of buses, and there was a long queue,” Hsieh recalled. “It was a school rule. We had to bow, and then we went home.” Chiang’s body is still there, under guard in a mausoleum at the end of a path
Last week the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) released a set of very strange numbers on Taiwan’s wealth distribution. Duly quoted in the Taipei Times, the report said that “The Gini coefficient for Taiwanese households… was 0.606 at the end of 2021, lower than Australia’s 0.611, the UK’s 0.620, Japan’s 0.678, France’s 0.676 and Germany’s 0.727, the agency said in a report.” The Gini coefficient is a measure of relative inequality, usually of wealth or income, though it can be used to evaluate other forms of inequality. However, for most nations it is a number from .25 to .50