Googly-eyed for Google

Googly-eyed for Google

Are we all so Googly-eyed for Google and all of their free products that we as consumers are willing to overlook our own privacy? We’ve seen Google go from top search engine to tech powerhouse lead online advertiser, top Internet browser, owner of YouTube, the largest mobile operating system, top email storage service, and obviously the best search engine (Smith, 2012). One could argue that Google has an online monopoly. This one company has the talent, the resources, and the ability to be the premier online service. Google is known for their corporate culture, which bleeds over to consumers (Goo, 2006). Google has such a wide variety of products because of the environment in which they are incubated. The company also benefits from the goodwill of most consumers since they pit themselves against hated companies like AT&T and Comcast, stimulating competition in once stale markets (Moritz, 2014).

But as technology advances, what point becomes too much for data collection? Yes, the data collected is helping to further more products, but at what cost? In 2013 Google spent $400 million to purchase DeepMind, an artificial intelligence firm. Google buys companies every day, so what makes this different? The company was concerned enough to form an AI ethics board to consider the moral implications of the projects (Bosker, 2014). This is the kind of company that we’re trusting with our information?

Too Much Power in One Place?

As with most conglomerates, Google uses lobbyists to push their opinions. In 2010, Google spent $5.16 million lobbying issues like net neutrality, online privacy, and online tracking (Kessler, 2011). Politics aside, it’s valuable to watch and see how such a large and successful corporation can influence policy in their favor.

Google tentatively first started lobbying Washington politicians in 2006 and has grown to be one of the top Washington lobbying companies (Hamburger & Gold, 2014). The company is effectively turning consumers away from privacy concerns and on to their products with the help of their lobbying powerhouse team. Take a look at how much Google’s spending on lobbying has increased since 2006.

Google is actively working to protect their right to collect consumer data and shield it from government bodies (Hamburger & Gold, 2014). Google’s Eric Schmidt said in a 2010 The Atlantic’s Washington Idea’s Forum that he realized that must policy was written by lobbyists, which has lead to the hiring of their own internal team (Greenfield, 2013). Was this a natural progression that should be expected of companies this large or was it more of an aggressive way to posh their policy through the ranks? No matter how you look at it, there should be some cause for concern. Google has a lot of money, power, and influence that can be used to make decisions that last for generations to come.

Who is Looking Out for ME?

For argument’s sake, if consumers decided to look elsewhere for their online services, where would they go? Bing? A 2013 study by AV Test showed that Bing is five times more likely to show malware in their search results (Knibbs, 2013).

Search engine Duck Duck Go has gained popularity in the past year for being able to protect users’ identity but it also lacks in offering personalized results that save time and effort (Price, 2014). Something interesting to know about Duck Duck Go is that they are currently in the running to replace Google on Apple devices next year when their contract comes up as the default search engine.

But Mom, Everyone is Doing it!

At the end of the day it all really boils down to which service consumers and marketers feel most comfortable with using. If you want to use superior products for free, then there isn’t really another option (Walter, 2014). You’re going to sacrifice privacy. You also know what you’re getting with Google. A quick search will set you straight. Even Google has admitted that people can’t honestly expect their emails to stay private, according to a brief filed in federal court (Goyette, 2013). Google has made their products so valuable that it’s difficult to find acceptable alternatives.

Would you rather supply data to a global corporation that is constantly under watch for changes in Terms of Services or would you rather take your chances with many subpar services that will also sell your data but not be as forthcoming?

Personally, I choose the superior, free services to the company that charges me for a non-mainstream product. I know that the Federal Trade Commission is concerned with Google’s practices and is ready to keep them in check as much as possible. I choose to put my trust in the media, regulatory agencies, and Google themselves. Just this year The FTC made Google pay $19 million in damages to consumers whose children were confused about the Google Play store (Kang, 2014). It took the FTC a while, but they know the threats with Google already. I picked my poison and I’m completely happy with it.

References:

Bosker, B. (2014, January 29). Huffington Post. “Google’s New A.I. Ethics Board Might Save Humanity From Extinction.” Retrieved from, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/google-ai_n_4683343.html.

Greenfield, R. (2013, June 3). The Wire. “Google Now Spends More on Lobbying Thank Lockheed Martin.” Retrieved from, http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/06/google-lobbying-lockheed-martin/65813/.

Goo, S. (2006, October 21). The Washington Post. “Building a ‘Googley’ Workforce.” Retrieved from, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001461.html.

Goyette, B. (2013, August 13). Huffington Post. “Google: Email Users Can’t Legitimately Expect Privacy When Emailing Someone On Gmail.” Retrieved from, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/gmail-privacy_n_3751971.html.

Hamburger, T. and Gold, M. (2014, April 12). The Washington Post. “Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence.” Retrieved from, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transforming-power-and-politicsgoogle-once-disdainful-of-lobbying-now-a-master-of-washington-influence/2014/04/12/51648b92-b4d3-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html.

Kang, C. (2014, September 4). The Washington Post. “Google agrees to pay $19 million in FTC in-app kids lawsuit.” Retrieved from, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/04/google-agrees-to-pay-19-million-in-ftc-in-app-kids-lawsuit/.

Kessler, S. (2011, January 31). Mashable. “Google Spent More on Lobbyists in 2010 Than Yahoo, Facebook & Apple Combined.” Retrieved from, http://mashable.com/2011/01/31/google-lobbyists-2010/.

Knibbs, K. (2013, April 12). Digital Trends. “Study Says Bing Returns Five Times More Malware Laden Links Than Google [Updated].” Retrieved from, http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/bing-vs-google-when-it-comes-to-malware-beware-of-bing/.

Moritz, S. (2014, April 21). Bloomberg. “AT&T to Expand Fast Web Service Race Against Google.” Retrieved from, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-21/at-t-plans-to-expand-fast-web-service-ramping-up-google-rivalry.html.

Price, C. (2014, May 5). Search Engine Watch. “Escape Google With These 12 Search Engine Alternatives.” Retrieved from, http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/how-to/2343048/escape-google-with-these-12-search-engine-alternatives#.

Smith, K. (2012, June 27). Business Insider. “PRESENTING: The 10 Best Google Products Ever.” Retrieved from, http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-best-google-products-2012-6?op=1.

Walter, D. (2014, September 9). PCWorld.com. “How to Ditch Google for more privacy and fewer ads.” Retrieved from, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2601364/how-to-ditch-google-for-more-privacy-and-fewer-ads.html.