Enter At Your Own Risk!!
We all want privacy; we all assume that it is one of the rights we possess as Americans. But the right to privacy is more difficult to define, and less explicitly protected than other rights guaranteed to us.
Many Internet firms collect a large amount of personal data from their users and use these data to allow advertisers to target and personalize ads. O’Hara (2013) explains how Individualists, communitarians, and technological determinists all agree that privacy's benefits increase to individuals, and its costs (in terms of less security or efficiency) fall on society. Solely, it is the individual's choice to give privacy away. However, privacy does benefit a wider society in important respects. O’Hara simply says, “Don’t interfere with other peoples decisions solely for their own good” (2013).
This article touched on many reasons for the loss of privacy, which one of a few is personal accountability. According to a 15 year High Tech Specialist Jared Howe,” Consumers are mostly expected to take responsibility for their own data privacy.” However, as anyone who has read a privacy statement knows, it is unrealistic for us to understand what exactly we are agreeing to when we accept them in order to use our favorite websites and online tools. We must all be alert in fighting for strong data privacy protections. The first step is to make data privacy a priority in our lives.
What Is "Evil" to Google?
“If anything, Google's motto seems to have largely succeeded at reframing “evil” to exclude all actions performed by Google.”--Ian Bogost.
Google has come to symbolize the tensions between the benefits of innovative, information–dependent new services and the desire of individuals to control the environments in which personal information is used. Google speaks about privacy in an effort to characterize the company’s handling of these pressures, to provide context explaining the meaning of the company’s privacy rhetoric, and to advance the privacy dialogue among policy makers, journalists, and consumers. But as computer researcher and social activist Aaron Swartz points out, Google had a very specific definition of evil.
In What Is 'Evil' to Google? Ian Bogost says, that the “evil” Google refers to is not the same sort of “evil” that most people think of when they hear the word. This article also gives us an opinion of Siva Vaidhyanathan author of the book The Googlization of Everything in which she observes that the "Don't be evil" slogan "distracts us from carefully examining the effects of Google's presence and activity in our lives."(2013)
Computer researcher and social activist Aaron Swartz points out, Google had a very specific definition of evil. It had nothing to do with market tactics like stabbing former partners in the back or playing hardball with weaker competitors. It was all about users. Google gave three examples: it would only show relevant ads, would never show pop-ups or other annoying "tricky" ads, and would never sell search results. So, in other words, what he is saying is that Google would never make a product worse for users just to make a quick buck.
I would say if Google is collecting information about me for profit that must mean that I am putting my information out there to give them. They are not hiding the fact that they do it, so it’s not considered evil at all. People know what they get into with giving out information online. We hear about it every day on the news. So, it’s almost like an “Enter at your own risk” situation.
Bogost, I. (2013)“What is ‘evil’ to google?” The Atlantic. Atlantic
Media Company.
O'Hara, K. (2013). The digital citizen: are we getting privacy the
wrong way round? IEEE Internet Computing, 17, (4), 89-92.
doi:10.1109/MIC.2013.62.
Howe, J. (2014). Microsoft studies online privacy attitudes, privacy policy accountability. Retrieved from
http://www.privatewifi.com/category/privatei/resources/.
Many Internet firms collect a large amount of personal data from their users and use these data to allow advertisers to target and personalize ads. O’Hara (2013) explains how Individualists, communitarians, and technological determinists all agree that privacy's benefits increase to individuals, and its costs (in terms of less security or efficiency) fall on society. Solely, it is the individual's choice to give privacy away. However, privacy does benefit a wider society in important respects. O’Hara simply says, “Don’t interfere with other peoples decisions solely for their own good” (2013).
This article touched on many reasons for the loss of privacy, which one of a few is personal accountability. According to a 15 year High Tech Specialist Jared Howe,” Consumers are mostly expected to take responsibility for their own data privacy.” However, as anyone who has read a privacy statement knows, it is unrealistic for us to understand what exactly we are agreeing to when we accept them in order to use our favorite websites and online tools. We must all be alert in fighting for strong data privacy protections. The first step is to make data privacy a priority in our lives.
What Is "Evil" to Google?
“If anything, Google's motto seems to have largely succeeded at reframing “evil” to exclude all actions performed by Google.”--Ian Bogost.
Google has come to symbolize the tensions between the benefits of innovative, information–dependent new services and the desire of individuals to control the environments in which personal information is used. Google speaks about privacy in an effort to characterize the company’s handling of these pressures, to provide context explaining the meaning of the company’s privacy rhetoric, and to advance the privacy dialogue among policy makers, journalists, and consumers. But as computer researcher and social activist Aaron Swartz points out, Google had a very specific definition of evil.
In What Is 'Evil' to Google? Ian Bogost says, that the “evil” Google refers to is not the same sort of “evil” that most people think of when they hear the word. This article also gives us an opinion of Siva Vaidhyanathan author of the book The Googlization of Everything in which she observes that the "Don't be evil" slogan "distracts us from carefully examining the effects of Google's presence and activity in our lives."(2013)
Computer researcher and social activist Aaron Swartz points out, Google had a very specific definition of evil. It had nothing to do with market tactics like stabbing former partners in the back or playing hardball with weaker competitors. It was all about users. Google gave three examples: it would only show relevant ads, would never show pop-ups or other annoying "tricky" ads, and would never sell search results. So, in other words, what he is saying is that Google would never make a product worse for users just to make a quick buck.
I would say if Google is collecting information about me for profit that must mean that I am putting my information out there to give them. They are not hiding the fact that they do it, so it’s not considered evil at all. People know what they get into with giving out information online. We hear about it every day on the news. So, it’s almost like an “Enter at your own risk” situation.
Bogost, I. (2013)“What is ‘evil’ to google?” The Atlantic. Atlantic
Media Company.
O'Hara, K. (2013). The digital citizen: are we getting privacy the
wrong way round? IEEE Internet Computing, 17, (4), 89-92.
doi:10.1109/MIC.2013.62.
Howe, J. (2014). Microsoft studies online privacy attitudes, privacy policy accountability. Retrieved from
http://www.privatewifi.com/category/privatei/resources/.