Google and DoubleClick

In a very interesting article, Jeffrey Chester (http://www.alternet.org/story/64214/?page=1) goes over how Google's well-publicized intent to buy DoubleClick could have serious ramifications for an individual's privacy, especially if that individual uses the web a lot: from random surfing to online shopping to playing online games to using sites such as Facebook/MySpace etc.

Consolidation: Impact on News Coverage
-------------------------------------------

Mr. Chester raises the specter of a few large conglomerates controlling not just 'benign' online content (such as 'fun, entertainment' sites) but also the 'serious' sites, such as those that deliver the news. That ideally should concern everyone - not just netizens - because online news in the near future will overtake physical media (such as newspapers, magazines) as the most common/popular way to getting to know what's going on around the world.

It's certainly not unusual for news channels to have a specific philosophy (politically), and the way they portray world events very strongly suggest that partisanship overrides any semblance of the truth. When such media are not large or do not have high penetration levels, they are usually ignored. However, it's when they become pervasive (via ownership of multiple channels) or become the only entities that have the breadth to cover large areas that they start to raise alarms. Unfortunately, by that time it'd be too late to do anything about it. Media behemoths could simply crowd out the smaller, independent channels using money power, advertising prowess, political connections, and lobbying for favorable laws (lobbying costs huge sums of money, something which smaller channels do not have).

Data Aggregation: Impact on Privacy
-----------------------------------------
The thought that a computer somewhere knows your 'secrets' and is quite capable of creating a psychological profile based simply on your mouse clicks and the places you visit on the web should be unnerving, but it's not to most people that use the web. And why would that be?
Simple: Lack of knowledge, education, and curiosity about how things work. As long as you're fed your daily fix of the news (Infotainment, really; when did you last see hard news on TV?), you're happy and satisfied. Why unnecessarily take the trouble to figure out WHY you read WHAT you read!

Imagine if your neighbor comes to know your deepest, darkest secrets; even what you think about or are capable of thinking about (Minority Report, anyone?) - will that be a source of unease/concern to you? It should be if it's not already.Now imagine if millions of computers (and very likely thousands of people) know about what you clicked, your intent in doing so, and maybe even what you'd do next - and why. Again, something to worry about when you can't sleep at night.

Combine Google's power of serving advertising to nearly all (including physical) media with its knowledge (thanks to DoubleClick) of your exact behavior when you are online. If you cannot see what's coming, you need a stinging splash of cold water on your face.

The next step, in my opinion, will be the creation of something like a 'life-model' - a model that constitutes EVERYTHING that is you, for EVERYONE on this planet, and this model will keep growing in intelligence and get closer to the real you with every click of your mouse and every tap of your keyboard. By now the reference to 'Big Brother' is redundant. Google is already on your computer via its toolbar and search utility, and it's also in your office via its web-based productivity software. It knows about your pictures - via Picasa, about your outpourings on any and all topics - via Blogger, your search patterns - via its all-powerful search engine...and so on.

This information is WAY more than enough to construct a halfway-decent model of you (powered by a well-populated database, which GOOG already has, and data mining software, which is not rocket science). So, as it stands today, GOOG knows more about you than anyone else (assuming you use Google services frequently), and DoubleClick is going to help it connect the dots where the data is patchy or missing. Of course, this is not to say that other companies do not have the dirt on you -- they do. Any search engine website that you use is perfectly capable of storing such information on you forever.

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but recent developments involving large companies (such as News Corp's acquisition of MySpace, the rumored - potential - investment in FaceBook by MS, rapid buyouts by GOOG of various tech companies, YAHOO's purchase of Zimbra, MSNBC's purchase of NewsVine etc etc etc) have me thinking about the eventual direction of everything that makes up the Web, the most visible part of the Internet.

Yes, it's true that smaller companies will either go under or get bought, and that as large companies become slower in innovating as time goes on they must purchase new technology outright, mainly from small companies since they are much more nimble and not restricted by any shareholder of investor pressures.

This wave of consolidation, fueled by - among other factors - a most favorable market where:

* interest rates were/are low,
* intense competition rage[sd] to capture eyeballs and dollars,
* money velocity was high,
* shareholders didn't care as long as their holdings appreciated,
* governments have been revolving doors for bureaucrats-turned-lobbyists,
* apathy and lack of concern by the general masses reigned supreme,
* lawmakers, some of whom in my personal opinion may not be very tech-savvy, create unsound tech-related laws that affect us profoundly,
* lawmakers, some of whom in my personal opinion are beholden to corporate interests, do right by them and hurt the general public,
* and, the leaps in technological accomplishments far outstrip any little jumps in laws serving to keep their uses legal and legitimate

will change the direction of how we view the world, and how the world will view itself - and maybe how the world will develop, too.

My first concern (as is the author's) is not only that the pipeline of news will be controlled by a handful of coroporate monsters dedicated to making profits and keeping investors sated, but also the idea that the news can also be easily MANIPULATED by the same guys. If you have but one source, how will you verify what you see?

In the ancient Indian Scriptures - the Vedas - it's said that doubts should be/can be cleared via either your Guru (the spirtitual master), a Sadhu (a learned person who's not your Spiritual Master), or the ultimate authority - the Scriptures themselves. That way a doubting mind can make sure it's free of all doubts when/before it learns something new.

In these times, the ultimate authority is missing, and the rest don't even matter since they're tainted by their bias and assorted illicit relationships. Where's a truth-seeking person to go!

My second concern stems from the privacy aspect. SO MUCH information in SO VERY FEW hands is a great cause for worry. As the cliche goes - Power corrupts...It's not that these data brokers and analysts WILL misuse the data (of course, they easily could) but that hackers and criminals will truly rejoice: it'd be like a pack of bank robbers in an unguarded bank. I am not saying that these monstrosities will leave their data unprotected, but that the temptation is extremely high to hit once, hit hard, and spirit away as many GBs of data as possible. Needless to say, every record that's stolen could cause a new case of identity theft, blackmail, or worse crimes.

More likely than not, the threat will come from insiders rather than complete strangers. Therefore, extremely strict rules and policies should be enforced when it comes to handling sensitive information, and very severe penalties should be levied both by the company on the employee and by the govt on the company.

My appeal to the government would be that they should step in, investigate ALL such deals (targeting any one company for political reasons would be most deplorable), and evaluate:
* the types of data being collected,
* the big picture when all data are combined,
* and finally the impact on users if such data were stolen.

Further, there's a desperate need for stronger consumer protection laws against misuse and abuse of such sensitive information both by the holders of the data as well as by hackers.
I'd urge the government to institute a technically adept panel (with no members having any vested interests in seeing results go a way specific way) to research the data aggregation and advertising industry, and recommend reforms and strategies to protect users from this stealthy onslaught of the information merchants.

Be safe!