Regarding privacy issues with Google technology companies, Google's privacy change (March 1, 2012) allows companies to share data across various services. This embedded service includes millions of third party websites that use Adsense and Analytics. This policy is widely criticized for creating an environment that hinders Internet innovation by making internet users more fearful and wary of what they install online.
Around December 2009, after privacy concerns surfaced, Google CEO Eric Schmidt stated: "If you have something that others do not want to know, maybe you should not do it in the first place.If you really need that kind of thing, privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - keep this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we're all subject to the United States to the Patriot Act and maybe all that information could be made available to the authorities. "
International Privacy has voiced concerns about the dangers and privacy implications of having centralized data warehouse at the center, millions of Internet users searches, and how under controversial US law, Google may be forced to submit all such information to the US. government. In the 2007 Consultation Report, Privacy International rated Google as "Hostile to Privacy", the lowest rank on their report, making Google the only company on the list to receive the rating.
At a Techonomy conference in 2010, Eric Schmidt predicted that "true transparency and no anonymity" is a path that must be taken for the internet: "In the world of asynchronous threats, it's too dangerous because there's no way to identify you.We need a service of [verified names ] to the people.The government will sue him. "He also said that," If I see enough of your message and your location, and using artificial intelligence, we can predict where you're going. Show us 14 pictures of yourself and we can identify who you are.You think you do not have 14 pictures of yourself on the internet? You have a Facebook photo! "
In the summer of 2016, Google quietly stopped its ban on personally identifiable information in its DoubleClick advertising service. Google's privacy policy is changed to state it is "possible" to combine the web search records acquired through DoubleClick with what the company learned from the use of other Google services. While new users are automatically opted in, users are asked if they want to opt in, and it's still possible to opt-out by going to "Activity control" on the "My Account" page of the Google account. ProPublica states that "The practical result of this change is that DoubleClick ads that follow people on the web can now be customized for them based on your name and other information Google knows about you, which also means that Google is now can, if you wish, create a complete portrait of users by name, based on everything they write in the email, every website they visit and the search they do. "Google contacts ProPublica to fix the fact that it is not" this "uses Gmail keywords to target web ads.
Video Privacy concerns regarding Google
Potential for data disclosure
Data leakage
On March 10, 2009, Google reported that a bug in Google Docs has allowed unwanted access to some private documents. It is believed that 0.05% of all documents stored through the service are affected by bugs. Google states that the bug has been fixed.
Cookies
Google places one or more cookies on each user's computer, which is used to track a person's web browsing on a large number of unrelated websites, and track their search history. If you sign in to Google services, Google also uses cookies to record which Google Accounts access each website and perform each search. Initially cookies do not expire until 2038, although it can be manually removed by the user or denied with the browser preference settings. In 2007, Google's cookies expire in two years, but update itself each time a Google service is used. In 2011, Google said it was anonymous IP address data it collects, after nine months, and a relationship between cookies and web access after 18 months. Starting 2016, Google's privacy policy does not promise anything about whether or when its recording of web searches or your searches are removed from its records.
The non-profit group, Public Information Research launched Google Watch, a website advertised as "seeing Google's monopoly, algorithm, and privacy issues." This site raises questions regarding Google's cookie storage, which in 2007 has a life span of more than 32 years and includes a unique ID that enables the creation of user data logs. Google faces criticism with the release of Google Buzz, Google's social networking version, where Gmail users have their contact list automatically published unless they opt out.
Google shares this information with law enforcement and other government agencies upon receipt of the request. Most of these requests do not involve a review or approval by any court or judge.
Tracking
Google is suspected of collecting and collecting data about Internet users through various tools provided to developers, such as Google Analytics, Google Fonts, and Google APIs. This can allow Google to determine user routes over the Internet by tracking IP addresses used through sequential sites (cross-domain web tracking). In relation to other information provided through the Google API, which is widely used, Google may be able to provide a fairly complete web user profile that links to IP addresses or users. This type of data is invaluable for marketing agencies, and for Google itself to improve the efficiency of its own marketing and advertising activities.
Google encourages developers to use their tools and to communicate end-user IP addresses to Google: "Developers are also encouraged to use user parameters to provide end-user IP addresses on behalf of you create API requests Doing so will help distinguish legitimate server side traffic from traffic not from end users. "
In light of the new data protection legislation and privacy legislation in Europe (2018), developers began creating plugins for integration of Google services such as Google Analytics in a way that respects the user's privacy options. This includes support for Do Not Track browser settings, opt-out cookies and methods such as opt-in tracking.
Gmail
Steve Ballmer, Liz Figueroa, Mark Rasch, and the Google Watch editor are sure that the processing of email message content by Google's Gmail service is more than the proper use.
Google Inc. claims that emails sent to or from Gmail are never read by humans other than the account holder, and the content read by the computer is only used to improve the relevance of the ads and block spam emails. The privacy policies of other popular email services, such as Outlook.com and Yahoo, allow users' personal information to be collected and used for advertising purposes.
In 2004, thirty-one privacy and civil liberties organizations wrote a letter calling on Google to suspend its Gmail service until privacy issues were adequately addressed. The letter also asks Google to clarify its written information policy regarding data storage and data sharing among its business units. The organization voiced their concerns about Google's plan to scan the text of all incoming messages for the purpose of ad placement, noting that secret email scanning to include third party ad content violates the implicit trust of email service providers.
In 2013, Microsoft launched an advertising campaign to attack Google to scan email messages, arguing that most consumers are unaware that Google monitors their private messages in order to deliver targeted ads. Microsoft claims that Outlook's email service does not scan the content of messages and a Microsoft spokesperson calls Google's "kryptonite" privacy issue. Other concerns include an unlimited period for data retention permitted by Google policies, and potential for unwanted secondary usage of information collected and stored by Gmail.
The court filings found by Consumer Watchdog's advocacy group in August 2013 revealed that Google stated in court that there was no "reasonable expectation" that existed among Gmail users with respect to the confidentiality of their emails. According to the British newspaper The Guardian, "Google court archiving refers to users of other email providers who send email to Gmail users - and not to Gmail users themselves". In response to the lawsuit filed in May 2013, Google explained:
... all email users should always expect that their emails will be subject to automatic processing... Just as a sender to a business colleague can not be surprised that the recipient's assistant opens the letter, people using email based web today can not be surprised if communication they are processed by the recipient's ECS service provider in the sending process.
A Google spokesman told the media on August 15, 2013 that the company took the issue of privacy and security of Gmail users "very seriously."
Relationships of CIA and NSA
In February 2010, Google reportedly will work on a deal with the National Security Agency (NSA) to investigate a recent attack on its network. And, while the agreement does not grant NSA access to Google data on user searches or communications and e-mail accounts and Google does not share ownership data with the relevant agencies, privacy and civil rights supporters.
In October 2004, Google acquired Keyhole, a 3D mapping company. In February 2004, before being acquired by Google, Keyhole received investment from In-Q-Tel, the CIA's investment arm. And in July 2010 it was reported that investment arm of both CIA (In-Q-Tel) and Google (Google Ventures) invested in Recorded Future, a company specializing in predictive analysis - monitor the web in real time and use that information to predict future. And, while private companies have used similar systems since the 1990s, the involvement of Google and the CIA with their large data stores raises privacy concerns.
In 2011, a federal district court judge in the United States rejected the Freedom of Information Act request, filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. In May 2012, the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling. The request sought to disclose NSA records of the 2010 cyber attacks on Google users in China. The NSA stated that disclosing such information would make the US Government's information system vulnerable to attacks. The NSA declined to confirm or deny the existence of records, or the existence of any relationship between the NSA and Google.
The leaked NSA documents acquired by The Guardian and The Washington Post in June 2013 include Google in the list of companies that cooperate with the NSA's PRISM oversight program, authorizing the government to secretly. accessing non-US citizens' data held by an American company without a warrant. After the leak, government officials acknowledged the existence of the program. According to leaked documents, the NSA has direct access to the servers of those companies, and the amount of data collected through the program has grown tremendously in the years before the leak. Google denies any "backdoor government".
Government requests
Google has been criticized for disclosing too much information to the government too soon and for not disclosing information that the government needs to enforce their laws. In April 2010, Google, for the first time, released details about how often countries around the world asked him to submit user data or to censor information. Online tools make updated data available to everyone.
Between July and December 2009, Brazil topped the demand for user data by 3,663, while the US made 3,580, the UK 1,166, and India 1,061. Brazil also made the largest number of requests to remove content by 291, followed by Germany with 188, India with 142, and US with 123. Google, which stopped offering search services in China a month before the data was released, said it could not release information about demand from the Chinese government because the information is considered a state secret.
Google's main legal officer says, "Most of these requests are valid and the information required is for a legitimate criminal investigation or for the elimination of child pornography".
Google Chrome
In 2008 Consumer Watchdog produced a video showing how Google Chrome recorded what users typed into the web address field and sent that information to Google's servers to fill in search suggestions. This video includes a discussion of the potential privacy implications of this feature.
Incognito browsing mode
Google Chrome includes a personal search feature called "incognito browsing mode" that prevents browsers permanently storing any search information or historical downloads or cookies. Using incognito mode prevents tracking by the browser. However, each of the websites visited can still track and store information about the visit. Specifically any searches made while logged into your Google account will be saved as part of your account's web history. In addition, other programs like those used to stream media files, called from within Chrome, may still record historical information, even when incognito mode is in use. In addition, the limitations of Apple's iOS 7 platform allow some information from the incognito browser window to leak to a regular Chrome browser window. There are concerns that this limitation may cause Chrome users to believe that incognito mode provides more privacy protection than it actually does.
Maps Privacy concerns regarding Google
Street View
Google's online map service, "Street View", has been accused of taking pictures and looking too far into a person's private home and/or getting too close to the people on the street when they did not know they were being photographed.
WiFi network information collection
During 2006-10, Google Streetview camera cars garnered about 600 gigabytes of data from unencrypted public and private Wi-Fi network users in over 30 countries. No disclosure or privacy policy is granted to those affected, nor to Wi-Fi station owners.
Google apologized and said they were "completely aware that we failed here" in terms of privacy protection, that they were not aware of the problem until there was a request from the German regulator, that personal data was collected accidentally, and no personal data was used in the Google search engine or other services. A representative of Watchdog Consumer replied, "Once again, Google has shown a lack of attention to privacy.The computer engineers are raging, pushing envelopes and collecting whatever data they can until their fingers are caught in a cookie jar." In a sign that legal punishment could result, Google says it will not damage data until it is authorized by regulators.
Streetview data collection encourages several lawsuits in the United States. The suit was consolidated into one case before California federal court. Google's move to cancel the case, saying that Wi-Fi communications it took was "easily accessible to the general public" and therefore did not violate federal wiretapping laws, was rejected in June 2011 by the US District Court for the Northern District of California and at the time of appeal in September 2013 by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The verdict was seen as a major legal setback for Google and allowed the case to return to the lower court for trial.
Google currently no longer collects WiFi data through streetview, and currently uses the Android device's Wi-Fi positioning system; but they suggest creating an integrated approach to opt-out of taking part in a Wi-Fi-based positioning system, suggesting the use of the word "_nomap" added to wireless access point SSIDs to exclude them from Google WPS databases.
Google Buzz
On February 9, 2010, Google launched Google Buzz, Google's microblogging service. Anyone with a Gmail account is automatically added as a contact to a pre-existing Gmail contact, and should opt out if they do not want to participate.
The launch of Google Buzz as an opt-out social network soon invites criticism for violating user privacy because it automatically allows Gmail user contacts to see their other contacts. In 2011, the United States Federal Trade Commission initiated a Commission which continues against responders Google, Inc., alleging that certain personal information from Gmail users is shared without consent from consumers through Google Buzz's social network.
Real name, Google, and Nymwars
Google Plus (G) was launched in late June 2011. The new service gained 20 million members in just a few weeks. At launch, the site content and behavior policy states, "To help fight spam and prevent fake profiles, use the names of friends, family, or co-workers you usually call you." Beginning in July 2011, Google began enforcing this policy by suspending accounts from those using fictitious names. Starting August 2011, Google grants a grace period of four days before applying the original name policy and suspending the account. Four days allow members time to change their pen name to their real name. This policy extends to new accounts for all Google services, including Gmail and YouTube, although existing accounts before the new policy do not need to be updated. At the end of January 2012, Google began allowing members to use nicknames, maiden names and other "established" names in addition to their public or real names.
According to Google, the real name policy makes Google more like the real world. People can find each other more easily, like a phone book. The real name policy protects children and young adults from cyber-bullying, such as those who bully who is hiding behind the pen name. There are many uses of search engines for people searching
A number of high profile commentators openly criticize Google's policies, including technology experts Jamie Zawinski, Kevin Marks, and Robert Scoble and organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Criticism has been extensive, for example:
- The policy is not like the real world, since real names and personal information are unknown to everyone in the off-line world.
- The policy fails to recognize the longstanding culture and Internet conventions.
- Using an online real name may harm or harm some individuals, such as victims of abuse or abuse. This policy prevents users from protecting themselves by hiding their identities. For example, someone who reports a human rights violation or a crime and posted it on YouTube can no longer do it anonymously. Dangers include the possibility of hate crime, retaliation against whistle-blowers, rebel executions, religious persecution, and retaliation against victims or crime witnesses.
- Uses a nickname different from anonymity, and the pseudonyms used consistently show "real personality".
- Google's arguments fail to address the financial benefits represented by linking personal data to real-world identity.
- Google has implemented their policies inconsistently, primarily by making exceptions for celebrities using pseudonyms and mononyms.
- The policy as mentioned is not enough to prevent spam.
- This policy may violate legal restrictions such as the German "Telemediengesetz" federal law, which makes anonymous access to online services a legal requirement.
- The policy does not prevent trolls. It is up to social media to encourage the growth of healthy social norms, and firmly tell people how they should behave inefficiently. YouTube and Viacom
- Do not be evil
- Google litigation
- Googlization
- Google History
- Facebook Criticism
- Criticism of Microsoft
- Criticism of Yahoo!
- Distributed search engine
- "Google v/s Google Products" on Down Blogspot in Pakistan.
- "Google Email Service" Gmail "Privacy Sacrifice for Extra Storage Space", Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, April 2, 2004
- "Google Flumks Privacy Group", Lisa Vaas, eWeek.com , June 12, 2007
- "Who is afraid of Google?", The Economist , August 30, 2007
- "10 reasons to turn off Google Buzz", Mushon Zer-Aviv, Mushon.com , February 17, 2010
- "Realism Googlist: The Google-China Story and the free-information regime as a new site of cultural imperialism and moral tension", Tricia Wang, Cultural Bytes , June 29, 2010
- "How to Eliminate Your Google Search History Before Google's New Privacy Policy", Eva Galperin, Electronic Frontier Foundation, February 21, 2012
On July 14, 2008, Viacom compromised to protect the personal data of YouTube users in a $ 1 billion copyright lawsuit. Google agrees to anonymize user information and internet protocol addresses of its subsidiaries on YouTube before submitting data to Viacom. The privacy agreement also applies to other litigants including FA Premier League, Rodgers & amp; The Hammerstein Organization and the Scottish Premier League. But the deal does not extend anonymity to employees, as Viacom wants to prove that Google staff are aware of the illegal uploading of material to the site. Therefore, the parties will further meet on this issue to make the data available to the court.
Do Not Track
In April 2011, Google was criticized for not going into the Do Not Track for Chrome feature that was included in most other modern web browsers, including Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari, and Opera. Critics point out that a new patent granted by Google in April 2011, to improve user tracking through web advertising, will provide more detailed information about user behavior and which does not track will harm Google's ability to exploit this. Kurt Bakke's software review from Conceivably Tech writes:
Google says that they intend to charge advertisers based on clickthrough rates, certain user activity, and payment models for performance. All patents seem to comply with Google's recent claims that Chrome is very important for Google to maintain search dominance through the Chrome web browser and Chrome OS and is described as a tool to lock users into Google search engines and - ultimately - advertising services. So how likely is Google to follow the do-not-track trend? Very impossible.
Mozilla's developer Asa Dotzler noted: "It seems pretty clear to me that the Chrome team is subject to the pressures of Google's advertising business and that's really embarrassing.I hope they'll show a bit more independence than that."
At the time of criticism, Google argued that technology is useless, because advertisers are not required to comply with user tracking preferences and remain unclear about what constitutes tracking (as opposed to storing statistical data or user preferences). Alternatively, Google continues to offer an extension named "Keep My Opt-Outs" that permanently prevents the advertising company from installing cookies on a user's computer.
The reaction to this extension is mixed. Paul Thurrott of Windows IT Pro called the extension "much, closer to what I asked for - something that just works and does not require users to find out - rather than an IE or Firefox solution" while regretting the fact that the extension not included as part of the browser itself.
In February 2012, Google announced that Chrome would incorporate the Do Not Track feature by the end of 2012, and it was implemented in early November 2012.
In addition, PÃÆ'³l Mac and Douglas J. (2016) in their study "Do not Let Google Know I'm Lonely", presents strong evidence that two giant technicians have very high accuracy while delivering results based on user's sensitive entries. PÃÆ'³l Mac and Douglas J. (2016) specifically focus on the user's financial and sexual preferences and they have concluded that "For Google, 100% user sessions on sensitive topics reject the hypothesis that no learning on sensitive topics by search engines has occurred and identified as sensitive.For Bing, the corresponding detection rate is 91%. "
Scroogle
Scroogle, named after the fictional character Ebenezer Scrooge, is a web service that lets users search Google anonymously. It focuses heavily on search privacy by blocking Google cookies and not saving log files. The service was launched in 2003 by Google critic Daniel Brandt, who worries about Google collecting personal information on its users.
Scroogle offers a web interface and browser plugin for Firefox, Google Chrome, and Internet Explorer that allows users to run anonymous Google search. This service scratches Google search results, deletes advertisements and sponsored links. Only raw search results are returned, which means features such as page preview are not available. For added security, Scroogle gives users the option to have all communication between their computers and the SSL encrypted search page.
While Scroogle activity is technically in violation of Google's terms of service, Google generally tolerates its existence, allowing access to the site on several occasions. After 2005, the service experienced rapid growth before experiencing a series of issues beginning in 2010. In February 2012, the service was permanently shut down by its creators due to a combination of Google's search query delay and denial-of-service being attacked by unknown people or groups.
Prior to its collapse, Scroogle handles about 350,000 questions daily, ranking among the top 4,000 sites worldwide and at top 2500 for the United States, Canada, UK, Australia and other countries in web traffic. Though discontinued in 2012, sites like DuckDuckGo, Ixquick, and Yippy also offer anonymous search options.
Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) children
Google has been criticized by some because it implements support for the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) requirements due to YouTube's "biased" terms of service and the "heavy" way to enforce the law. According to Google's Privacy Policy, children under 13 are not allowed to use any Google services, including Gmail.
Privacy and protection cases of data and problems by country
European Union
EU data protection officer (Article 29 working party advising the EU on privacy policy) has written to Google to ask the company to justify its policy of storing information on everyone's internet search for two years. The letter questions whether Google has "met all the necessary requirements" of the EU law on data protection. On May 24, 2007 investigations by the EU into data protection issues continued. As of May 31, 2007, Google agrees that its privacy policy is unclear, and that they continue to work to make it more clear to users. After Google merged its privacy policy into a single one by March 2012, the working groups of all EU Data Protection Authorities rated that they failed to comply with the EU legal framework. Several countries then opened cases to investigate possible violations of their privacy rules.
Google has also been involved in Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja GonzÃÆ'¡lez , the case of Audiencia Nacional and the European Court of Justice of Spain deciding Google must comply with European privacy laws (ie, Data Protection Directive) and allow users to be forgotten when operating in the EU.
Czech Republic
Starting in 2010, after more than five months of unsuccessful negotiations with Google, the Office of the Republic for Personal Data Protection has prevented Street View from taking pictures of new locations. The office describes Google's program as taking pictures "beyond the reach of the usual view of the road", and claims that it's "disproportionate citizens privacy." Google returned Street View in the Czech Republic in 2012 after agreeing to a number of limitations similar to Google's concessions in other countries.
French
In January 2014, the French authorities, CNIL, sanctioned Google to pay its highest fees and to display on the banner search engine website referring to the decision. Google fulfills, but will appeal to the supreme court of administrative justice, Conseil d'Etat. A number of French and German companies joined forces to form a group called the Open Internet Project, seeking a ban on Google's manipulation of its own services and content over others.
German
In May 2010, Google could not meet the deadlines set by Hamburg's data protection watchdog to deliver illegally collected data from an unsecured home wireless network. Google added, "We hope, given more time, to be able to solve this difficult problem." The data was submitted to German, French and Spanish authorities in early June 2010.
In November 2010, vandals in Germany targeted homes that had opted out of Google Street View.
In April 2011, Google announced that they would not expand the Street View program in Germany, but what has been taken - about 20 city pictures - will still be available. This decision is independent of the previous Berlin Supreme Court verdict that Google's Street View program is legitimate.
In September 2014, a high official in Germany called for Google to be split as publishers struggled in court over compensation for text snippets that appeared with Google News updates. Chief Executive Axel Springer, the German publishing giant, expressed concern over Google's growing influence in the country.
Italy
Google vs. Google Vividown: In February 2010, in a complaint filed by an Italian advocacy group for people with Down's Syndrome, Vividown, and the boy's father, three Google executives were given a six-month suspended sentence for violation of Italy's Personal Data Protection Code in connection with the video, uploaded to Google Video in 2006, a disabled child is being bullied by several classmates. In December 2012, these convictions and penalties were canceled on appeal.
Norwegian
The Norwegian Data Inspectorate (Norway is not a member of the European Union) has investigated Google (and others) and has stated that the 18 to 24 month period to keep the data submitted by Google is too long.
United Kingdom
On March 27, 2015, the Court of Appeal ruled that British consumers had the right to sue Google in the UK for misuse of personal information.
United States
In early 2005, the US Department of Justice filed a motion to a federal court to force Google to comply with a subpoena for "the text of any search string entered into the Google search engine for a period of two months (no information identified the person who submitted such a question). "Google opposes court calls, because of concerns about user privacy. In March 2006, the court ruled in favor of Google, acknowledging the privacy implications of reversing search terms and refusing to grant access.
In April 2008, Pittsburgh, Aaron and Christine Boring, sued Google for "privacy violations". They claim that Street View makes their home photos available online, and that reduces the value of their homes, purchased for privacy. They lost their case in the Pennsylvania court. "While it is easy to imagine that many properties that appear on Google's virtual maps hate the privacy implications, it's hard to believe that anything - other than the most sensitive - will suffer shame or humiliation," Judge Hay decides; The Boring family was paid a dollar by Google for the incident.
In May 2010, the US District Court in Portland, Oregon ordered Google to submit two copies of wireless data collected by the company's Street View program when shooting the environment.
In 2012 and 2013, Google reached two completions of consumer tracking online without their knowledge after passing through the privacy settings in the Apple Safari browser. The first is a settlement in August 2012 for $ 22.5 million with the Federal Trade Commission - the largest civil penalty in F.T.C. never obtained for violating Commission orders. The second is the completion of November of $ 17 million with 37 states and the District of Columbia. In addition to fines, Google agrees to avoid using software that overrides the browser's cookie blocking settings, to avoid deleting or misinforming consumers about how they use Google products or control the ads they see, to retain for five years a web page explaining what a cookie is and how to control it, and to ensure that the cookies that are bound to the Safari browser ends. In both settlements Google denied wrongdoing, but said it stopped the arrangement in early 2012, after the practice was publicly reported, and stopped tracking Safari users and showing them personalized ads.
DoubleClick Ads combined with other Google services
In the summer of 2016, Google quietly stopped its ban on personally identifiable information in its DoubleClick advertising service. Google's privacy policy is changed to state it is "possible" to combine the web search records acquired through DoubleClick with what the company learned from the use of other Google services. While new users are automatically opted in, users are asked if they want to opt in, and it's still possible to opt out by going to the Activity controls on the My Account page of the Google account. ProPublica states that "The practical result of this change is that DoubleClick ads that follow people on the web can now be customized for them based on your name and other information Google knows about you, which also means that Google is now can, if you wish, create a complete portrait of users by name, based on everything they write in the email, every website they visit and the search they do. "Google contacts ProPublica to fix the fact that it is not" this "uses Gmail keywords to target web ads.
See also
References
External links
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments