Author Peter Goodman, blogger for Huffington Post, has written an article on the slick maneuvers Google has and is using to slip out from under the scrutiny of their own ways and means practices. Mr. Goodman's attempt at casting a shadow of doubt on the bright-white divinity of Google is static throughout the piece. He attempts to put a byte of fear on the hard-drive of the brain of every Google/Google-product user who reads his August '11 blogicle.
This article is a clanger-alert that Google does not have quite the def hand at security they purport. Interpreting the sub-text in his blog is straight-forward: Google is aware that they aren't as Gibraltor-solid as they need to be and are being duplicitous by implementing guerrilla tactics to avert the undesired analysis.
Mr. Goodman's accusation in this bit of bloggery is that Google has averted outside analytical study of their products and privacy promises by turning the spotlight from themselves to their largest antagonist: China. Why is Google tossing a red herring at our feet? wonders Mr. Goodman. And he goes on to say that this isn't the first time for them to use that tack.
This article is a clanger-alert that Google does not have quite the def hand at security they purport. Interpreting the sub-text in his blog is straight-forward: Google is aware that they aren't as Gibraltor-solid as they need to be and are being duplicitous by implementing guerrilla tactics to avert the undesired analysis.
Mr. Goodman's accusation in this bit of bloggery is that Google has averted outside analytical study of their products and privacy promises by turning the spotlight from themselves to their largest antagonist: China. Why is Google tossing a red herring at our feet? wonders Mr. Goodman. And he goes on to say that this isn't the first time for them to use that tack.
Google has become our valued go-to bot for a litany of purposes...
useful/intelligent tools . research abilities . seek & find properties . incident-free purchases
streaming conveniences . cross-referencing capacities . communications . banking/monetary transactions...
And with everything we have come to depend on them for, the assumption is made that because the
Googlonians wear a 'Do No Evil' badge and being such a large, powerful and brilliant uber-corp, the information they
glean/stack/store/save will be safe as houses, protecting Googolites
(us) from the worst of the bad guys. Mr. Goodman, however, sees Google as morphing into more of an unintended Trojan horse--that before they're able to crack open, deal with and extract from, it'll be too little, too late.
Goodman's analysis is that Google should cowboy-up, acknowledge (publicly) that they have work to do to maintain, grow and strengthen the trust and particularly the protection in their charge instead of spending energies fashioning a cover-up.
Interestingly, the recent fussing with China has gotten political heads as well as the F.B.I. in front of Google in order to fob off any more angst-driven strikes to U.S. capitalism and privacy. If president wannabes and Elliott Ness are standing in the lurch on behalf of Google, how will The Goog be paying them back in reciprocity? Already back is
scuttlebutt the FBI has elicited assistance from Google on more
than one occasion re: tracking and data collection for persons on the
lam. Google, he intimates, is a thriving monster--barely controlled, with its power and ferocity slowly being shifted to new and 'shadowed' leadership...and on shaky grounds besides.
Mr. Goodman distresses that Google has its sights set on government data-collection as well as serving as arbiter for commercial transactions (Google's acquisitions to-date are staggering). And to ratchet-up concerns he states: "It seeks to be the storage house for vital secrets." And therein lies political issues by the passelful. If Google, by their own declaration, is already fending hitches come to keeping China out of their patch, then begin a muscle-campaign to collect hard political/military data, the inevitable outcome would be, as the Brits have it: 'not their finest hour.' We may find ourselves carving 1s and 0s on cave-room walls...
I know not with what weapons
World War III will be fought,
but World War IV will be fought
with sticks and stones.
a.einstein
Mr. Goodman leaves us with haunting specters of doubt of Google's brand, their trustworthitude, their sincerity in "Doing No Evil", and their ability to keep product, histories and spillions of pieces of data safe, tight, and secure.
Being married to and housed with a firewall engineer for 20 years has made me a bit on the suspicious of any online-TGTBT*-deal. And while I love, use and depend on Google for my dailies, there has forever been a niggle in my noggin that someday all this online loveliness would change--and prolly for the bad. Mr. Eric Schmidt (B.S., M.S., Ph.D., CEO/EC: Google) may've been sincere long ago when he touted Google's mission statement to "Don't Be Evil" but he's well-moneyed now and not at the pinnacle helm anymore...the new regime mayn't hold with the same platitudes. Since that change, Google's privacy policies as well as their firewall defenses are, to all appearances, slouching toward fluid.
Being married to and housed with a firewall engineer for 20 years has made me a bit on the suspicious of any online-TGTBT*-deal. And while I love, use and depend on Google for my dailies, there has forever been a niggle in my noggin that someday all this online loveliness would change--and prolly for the bad. Mr. Eric Schmidt (B.S., M.S., Ph.D., CEO/EC: Google) may've been sincere long ago when he touted Google's mission statement to "Don't Be Evil" but he's well-moneyed now and not at the pinnacle helm anymore...the new regime mayn't hold with the same platitudes. Since that change, Google's privacy policies as well as their firewall defenses are, to all appearances, slouching toward fluid.
Mr. Goodman's notice pertains to every grid-liver in mainstream Googletopia. His flow and content in this blog entry are sufficiently adequate to strike alerts among the masses along with more than a fair clutch of supporting evidence, making for clear, understandable statements about his opinion and projections. I agree with his concerns (and admittedly feel a little conspiracy-theoristy coupled with a strong desire to {futilistically} scrub my entire hard-drive and have a do-over.)
While Google is wedged full o'unfairly-gifted/talented/blessed/charmed folk--many supplied (seemingly) with internal crystal balls directing their decisions--there are leagues of outsiders who are just as (or more) dense with the smarties, having more to do with the larcenous-inclined that don't hold so much with the 'supposed' convictions of the Googletopians. Got stand-alone?
"Previously, we only offered Personalized Search for signed-in users,
and
only when they had Web History enabled on their Google Accounts.
What
we're doing today is expanding Personalized Search so that we can
provide it to
signed-out users as well. This addition enables us to
customize search results for you
based upon 180 days of search activity
linked to an anonymous cookie in your browser.
It's completely separate
from your Google Account and Web History."
Layman's breakdown: it doesn't matter if you're signed in or out, we know:
your browsing habits...what you look at...who you are...where you are
The great Mr. Charlie Daniels may have critiqued Goodman's blog submission
--as well as Google's mettle--
in a lyrical (and distinctly more direct) approach.
--as well as Google's mettle--
in a lyrical (and distinctly more direct) approach.
*too good to be true
No comments:
Post a Comment