Consumer Watchdog Takes On Google As Lawmakers Mull Data Privacy Regulation

Consumer Watchdog -- which, as the name implies is a consumer watchdog organization -- is raising alarms over privacy concerns that have been brought to the fore as online search company Google engages in wheeling and dealing before the House Communications and Consumer Protection Subcommittee.

At issue is legislation that might affect Google's practice of "behavioral advertising," the process by which Google serves ads to users based upon personal information gleaned from individual users' browsing habits, which many deem invasive. Potentially, lawmakers could inhibit Google's ambitions in this area by making it possible for users to opt out of Google's meticulous tracking. Worse for the online giant is the possibility that users will have to opt in in order to be tracked in the first place. At the very least, Google might find itself subjected to a "Do Not Google" list, similar to the "Do Not Call" lists that have been applied to the telemarketing industry.

In their press release, Consumer Watchdog notes that their concerns have become magnified with the announcement that Google will be introducing their own operating system:

The question has grown more urgent with Google's announcement Wednesday that it will release a new operating system that moves currently computer-based functions to its proprietary Internet "cloud," said Consumer Watchdog. Congress is considering forcing Google to adopt an opt-in model where users must actively allow Google to collect browsing history and user data.

"The Justice Department should be worried when Google tries to obfuscate its data tracking capacity and reach rather than disclose all of it," said Judy Dugan, research director of Consumer Watchdog. "Congress should demand that Google stop tracking Americans' online behavior without their prior permission."

[...]

Google's new operating system could also comb users' stored documents for information on those "interest categories." The depth of this potential data collection is not mentioned in the Google spin document. ...Instead, it boasts repeatedly of Google's commitment to transparency and "user friendliness" in delivering the lucrative advertising.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Jamie Court, president of the Consumer Watchdog, was explicit in his concerns: "No one knows more about Americans than Google...The FBI doesn't know as much about us as Google. That has to worry Congress as much as it should worry Americans as they learn about it." Regarding the proposed operating system, Court says, "People just don't get it that your documents are at Google, not on your computer," making those items subject to the same processes that power Google's "behavioral advertising."

To emphasize their point, Consumer Watchdog has obtained a confidential "spin document," thanks to "an anonymous industry insider who has previously provided other Google spin documents." In the first place, yes: "Confidential" "spin documents" on transparency and privacy are awesome monuments to irony. And the document in question, Consumer Watchdog believes, is "associated with a June 18 Congressional hearing that questioned online "behavioral advertising." What makes this better however, is that Consumer Watchdog has done their own "satirical annotation" of this "spin document." And the annotated document is full of fun Google facts, like the byzantine click odyssey one must go on to opt out of being served Google Ads! And the four hours of videos you need to watch to get briefed on privacy!

Story continues below

advertisement

But the important part of the satiric annotation are the questions for lawmakers that are helpfully provided:

1. Why isn't Google's behavioral advertising opt-in rather than opt-out?

2. Why not prominently include a link allowing users to permanently opt-out of Google tracking?

3. 2008: Google says it has no plans to use behavioral advertising... [that] it doesn't work. What changed?

4. Is Google's behavioral advertising really about delivering more interesting ads or is it about expanding its data collection and targeting activities?

And, just for emphasis, they direct people to this video, by the hilarious comedy group The Big Honkin':

[WATCH]

READ THE ORIGINAL GOOGLE "SPIN DOCUMENT," HERE.

READ THE SATIRIC ANNOTATION, HERE.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[Areyoukiddingg]

Seems as though this is somewhat of a "trust" issue and I certainly wouldn't trust Google. In their business dealings they are the worst monolithic company in the world. Just last week they shut down God knows how many Adwords accounts simply because they suspected the users had violated their terms of service. And the penalty isn't just shutdown of the account, the user is banned for LIFE! No arbitration, hearing, or 2nd chances involved. Make an inquiry to get more details about your "shunning" and you get an email telling you the decision is final and "please don't email again". What a way to run a company! Their OS will NEVER touch my computer!

[OneTruePatriot]

I wonder how much money "Consumer Watchdog" is taking from Microsoft? I think the watchdog needs a watchdog!

[Chernynkaya]

If you are concerned about privacy, here is a story I heard on NPRs "Marketplace" today.

Credit card companies are now doing "credit profiles" similar to racial profiling. What spokespeople from the banksters said was that if you go to a bar and use your credit card they flag it- you may be trying to drown your money problems and they might raise your rates. If you shop at Walmart, and haven't recently, you may be poor, maybe lost your job- and they might cancel your credit. Even if you go to a spa, you may be stressed about money. Everything you buy with a credit card is on a database and they are now putting together profiles of purchases to determine your credit-worthiness. They even said that if some good credit folks get denied, it's still worth it to them to prevent defaults.

Many people are defaulting. But to remedy this situation, instead of proper credit screening on the front end, they are intrusively profiling their existing cardholders in ways I find outrageous.

Let's say I want to have a couple of drinks with some friend and I pick up the tab- I'm supposed to get flagged! Who are they to either judge my behavior or assume I'm worried about my job? If I decide I should be more frugal and shop at discount stores, should my credit card rates go up? Big Brother alive and well.

[lungfish]

Great point. I don't use credit cards and haven't for years for this and so many other reasons. I have a good credit rating and could get a card if I wanted one but my bank debit card works just fine for my purchases. I don't need to borrow money on credit and if I did, I wouldn't and haven't in the past. Just have to work harder.
We don't need credit cards. We don't need to consume everything. We don't need to gift ourselves things that cause debt. We certainly don't need a higher standard of living than our cash incomes. Its a voluntary choice that many make and wish they hadn't.

But the CC companies are insidious and should be really reigned in...

I started to get a call every week from NCO Financial (Google them for an eyeopener), a debt collection company and they want me to give them info about a third party that I used to know that owes them money. I told them to effe off and do their own homework and now I get calls everyday.. can't get off their list without devoting a ton of time and energy.

They have bought up old debt, sometimes beyond ten years old, and are busy going after anyone they can. Its really disgusting.

The information age is not going so well.

[Chernynkaya]

I also use debit only. They are usurious and now, they are dangerous. Also agree completely about our consumerism. People in most other countries have much less stuff and live better.

[Goliadkin]

Credit cards are very dangerous. They encourage a debting lifestyle that can be very difficult to escape from. If you have problems with money and debt, you might benefit from Debtors Anonymous. They are a 12-step program for debtors, underearners, and all who have an unhealthy relationship with money. Google to find your local meetings, if interested. If not interested, do as you please!

[frantaylor]

"Now" is false. They have been doing this for years and years.

[iafn]

I think CW's point would be made a lot better if they didn't resort to stupid stunts like calling out the repeated use of a "proprietary and confidential" tag on an internal corporate document as somehow being devious, or construe long and boring privacy policies as being misleading. Every company in the world puts these tags on all internal documents, routinely, period; every company's privacy policies are boring reading, which is why they don't top bestseller lists. Lawyers make those decisions, not evil geniuses.
The document describes the company's admittedly insufficient but apparently sincere efforts at transparency and privacy protection, and doesn't even really hint at any sort of ill intent or conspiracy - not exactly a smoking gun. And besides, how can it be a "spin document" if it was supposed to be kept confidential?! Unless they MEANT for it to leak... damn. Those Google guys are GOOD.

[getoffmedz]

From Google Terms of Service - "11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this licence shall permit Google to take these actions."

Nothing is free on the internet and EVERYONE is being watched thanks to the Shrub's devious administration sidekicks and commercial now standard practice - removing any privacy you may have thought you on any "public" network, digital or analog.

How did this happen?

[frantaylor]

How can this lawsuit proceed when google is transparently obvious about what they are doing?

If you don't like what they do, don't use them. It is easy enough.

[norkas]

there are and should be limits how you are tracked. So Google may of croosed the line snd should step back a little and understand myself and many others who like them allot have our limits also.

Unless they step back a new serch angine or Yahoo or others will provide a very nice option for you and then Goggle will catch on. By then i know allot of people that will say to late idiots you got to big and lost any feeling for humanity.

[cruzy]

This is a private company, which offers services and products for profit, not as charity. If you are uncomfortable with their privacy policies or how they maintain information, then simply don't use their service or products. It's really that simple. Or, maybe, Google could just shut down its services and stop its product offerings entirely. I don't know anyone who works for Google or have any interest in the company, but I do believe it has a right, as long as its honest with its consumers, to operate its business as it sees fit. It offers products and services, which are useful, but not necessary. 10 years ago, Google didn't even exist, but I seem to recall it was hardly the Dark Ages--we all got along just fine. All this hand-wringing is absurd. You don't need Google, nor do you have any right to their services or products. If you don't like their policies, DO NOT use them. There are various companies I choose not to patronize for one reason or another--I think others can just follow my example. And, yes, NOTHING in life is free, nor should it be. I wish people would just grow up and take responsiblity for themselves, instead of playing the victim.