Do you have questions about the site? Write to bruce at perens.com .
List of all articles we've ever published.
Source Code
Developer's Documentation
RSS
XML Sitemap
XML News Sitemap
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Is Google Past "Do No Evil"?
A little over a year ago, we had an article here entitled "Go Ogle Maps", which discussed what I'll call the first wave of complaints regarding the very visual nature of Google's "Street View" and the ways in which Google ammasses information for it.
Has Google changed its stance from its erstwhile credo of "Do No Evil" to "complete privacy does not exist" [too many references to single one out. Just, um, google it]?
Actually, Google never said "Do No Evil". What they did say was, "You can make money without doing evil", and that's just point #6 under the heading of "Ten things Google has found to be true". So technically, they never promised to be these good guys that the industry reporters have made them out to be. Also, it does not appear to me as if Google has a money problem. So, the question is, what other reasons do they have for doing this? George Dyson's recently-slashdotted short story "Engineers' Dreams" implies that Google is searching us more than we are searching Google. In my very insignificant opinion, this has been perfectly obvious for a number of years already, and the things they are doing with all that knowledge is mindboggling.
So what does it mean when Google states that complete privacy does not exist?
Well for starters, it means that they dare say it; they've become big and powerful enough that it can't possibly affect them in the slightest if a few of us are horrified and outraged. It also means they can get away with it. They're probably also so settled in their "Do No Evil" karma that it would take a lot more for the industry to change their view on the giant. Besides, in our day and age, what body of government is going to stop them? It's that business of who will throw the first rock in the glass house (snicker).
"But," I hear you say, "okay so they've driven up people's driveways and made photographs, but they could just as well have been made with a satellite or a telephoto lens. Plus, you know you can just submit a removal form via their website. There, now it's no longer invasion of privacy." I don't subscribe to that point of view, but I can see why it seems to make sense. It's not a matter of from where you snap a photo, or that they offer an after-the-fact opt-out form, it's that they do it to begin with without my consent or knowledge. If we were talking about unsolicited email, faxes, or phone calls, would you accept an opt-out service after you've been spammed? Not that you could even compare it like that, because that's just annoying to you, it does not publically display private information. All this talk about people or things that are found to be in places they're not supposed to be, all I can say is is that that's not a service.
Naturally, had Google not said this in the first place, the situation itself would have been no different, and I guess most of us here are already quite aware that trying to protect one's privacy is utterly impossible and only results in personal misery and depression. After all, it's not really just Google I'm talking about.
Why not just embrace the new world, they're only offering a service, they're our side, and aren't we the better off for it? Because it fills me with apprehension, is why. When I want to go my own ways, it's nice to know that I can. For instance, saving on gas by driving a little more leisurely (or just biking to work), or opting for low-energy lighting and appliances. Sometimes, you just have to do what everybody else is doing or you'd have disaster, such as driving on the same side of the road as everyone else. ...And yet other times, you have no choice but to do what everybody else is doing, all the while being absolutely certain it'll end up in disaster exactly because everyone is such a sheep.
I'm still caring and protective about my privacy but, like the time I saw a film with a British WWI prisoner who meticulously pretended to shave even though he hadd neither straight razor, brush, nor mirror, I'm not entirely sure I know who I'm kidding.