[governance] Rights and Privacy: Questioning Google's PrivacyReform

Sun Sep 14 07:12:53 EDT 2008

McTim and all,

McTim wrote:

> cc list trimmed.
>
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams
> <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > All, and especially Vint,
> >
> >  I can't of course speak for the IGC, nor Google users, I am not one,
> >
> > but I am yet again having trouble believing anything Google officially
> > says, or for that matter does, as well as having more and more trouble
> > with their sense of right and wrong, and User Friendliness.
>
> If you are not a Google user, then why do you think you have any
> standing to comment on their practices?

  Personally I don't.  But a few of our members do.

>
>
> >
> >  Given that Privacy is a very special and most important right,
> > as it is not separable from saftey/security, endangering others by
> > having business practices and policies such as Googles TOS
>
> Individuals use web services of certain companies, if they have
> concerns about those companies practices, then they should complain to
> that company and/or NOT USE those services.

Agreed to a degree.  Simply doing as you suggest does not effect
change as history has shown in a reasonable direction more often
than not.

>
>
> >
> > and this article below demonstrates gives me and our members
> > much more than just pause, but grave concern as well for many
> > obvious and not so obvious reasons, all of which Google executives
> > should be well aware of and/or recognize fully, but either don't,
> > or do, and could care less...
>
> If, according to their biz model they feel the need to keep data for a
> period of time, and make users aware of this, then it seems to me that
> they are full aware.  The facts of the story you cite below leads me
> to think they do care.

  Problem is they haven't done so until very recently, and even at
that, they have not done so in a very broad public way.  Why do
they need to keep this data anyway?

>
>
> >
> > See:
> > A story questioning whether Google's recent commitment to anonymize
> > IP logs faster is  http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10038963-46.html
> > really as good as it sounds.  We discussed
> >  http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/09/1334251&tid=158
>
> It seems to me that this company is doing more for Internet growth in
> the developing world than any other I can think of.  It's certainly
> the case here in East Africa, with Apps, translation, google.org
> support to SMEs, etc.  This is just the latest example:  http://www.o3
> bnetworks.com

  True enough, ignorance is bliss I suppose...

>
>
> We, as a caucus, should embrace this type of corporate social
> responsibility, not criticize them for listening to the concerns of
> privacy advocates, and acting upon those concerns.

  Obviously I disagree to an extent.  I am not a privacy advocate
in the political sense.  Sure, I do have a strong belief in the Bill
of Rights and the US Constitution and the privacy rights it extolls.
As such, and when Google or any other company or individual
tramples or mitigates those rights, however minutely, I proudly
and rightly object.  This is as I see it, and swore to same, my
duty as an American citizen, and Security Professional.  A US
corporations primary social responsibility is as it should be,
FIRST and FORMOST to abide by the ALL the laws and Constitutional
provisions, and rights under the Bill of Rights.  Not to mitigate
same in their own corporate social ideal for the purposes of
political advantage of the day or time.  So if we are going to
ever have an "Internet Bill of Rights" we as a caucus are going to
need to get Google on board of fully, and without any mitigation,
respecting individual users rights.  A tall order to be sure!

  Otherwise a "Internet Bill of Rights" is a nearly a useless exercise
or a empty vessel of very little, if any value.  I know where I stand,
and where you and Google stand at present.  Hopefully we can
convince you that your and Googles possition is not yet in the interest
of the "Greater Good" and when your and Googles is, old Ben's sprit
can be proud of us all.  >:)

>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> mctim.blogspot.com (a Google service)
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance