The Economist devotes this weekend’s cover to Google, asking the question “Who’s afraid of Google?” Readers of my blog will know that I’ve got a healthy fear of the company, but I was pleased to see the Economist ask the question I’ve been asking for quite some time (if privately to not appear over-paranoid).
Google is often compared to Microsoft (another enemy, incidentally); but its evolution is actually closer to that of the banking industry. Just as financial institutions grew to become repositories of people’s money, and thus guardians of private information about their finances, Google is now turning into a custodian of a far wider and more intimate range of information about individuals. Yes, this applies also to rivals such as Yahoo! and Microsoft. But Google, through the sheer speed with which it accumulates the treasure of information, will be the one to test the limits of what society can tolerate.
Indeed. It’s no secret that Google is in the data business; between your search history (Google search), your mail (Gmail), browsing history (Google toolbar), your financial transactions (Google payments), your blog habits (Blogger + Feedburner) and all other behaviors reported by Adsense cookies and Google analytics, it can be argued that Google has a “complete” view of many of our online behaviors. Now, imagine what would happen if your “Google Dossier” got out? If a branch of the federal government had as much data about as many of us as Google does, how would we feel about it?
This is not to say that Google plans on releasing our Dossiers. As the data gets more complete, more centralized and more wide ranging, the cost of the accidental (or non-accidental) release increases exponentially. The Economist points to the example of Nick Leeson, a trader who single-handedly brought down the Bearings Bank. Imagine how much a political operative would pay for the search logs for Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney’s home or offices.
Google would rather us not think about this possibility. According to the Economist, millionaire managers are forced to abide by a proletarian dress code to play up Google’s friendly image.
[A former executive] started receiving detailed e-mails “enforcing” Google’s outward informality by reminding her that high heels and jewellery were inappropriate. Before the corporate ski trip, it was explained that “if you wear fur, they will kill you.”
Of course, the folksy dress and casual image are all constructed, tuned precisely and framed to make Google appear as our “corporate friend”. As we buy into it, our willingness to share data grows. When will our moment of comprehension come, and how many of us will it touch? I think we all want to avoid that day, but as Google’s size and appetite for data grows, it appears increasingly inevitable.
Fred Stutzman is a doctoral student, researcher and teaching fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's School of Information and Library Science. He studies how people use social media.
