Picture shamelessly filched from Sadly, No
One of the many and various things I constantly and futilely rail against is data intrusion; these days there is nothing about us, no tiny smidgen of information, however ephemeral, that is not owned.
Just not by us.
The ultimate expression of capitalist society has to be when the individual doesn’t own or control the means of production of their own bodily tissue, because some corporation has claimed the intellectual property rights to their genes.
We have lost the means of production of the most basic things about us, intrinsic to our identities as humans: who we are, what we do, where we go, who our friends and family are, what we think – even what we are, when you add DNA and biometrics data.Our very identity is not our own. But where did it go, and who took it? Did we just lose it? Were we just careless and it fell out of a pocket hole? Or was it stolen? I’d say the latter: if information is currency then we’re being robbed blind every moment of the day.
One of the biggest information thieves of all is Google. Beneath that carefully cultivated image of louche, hip, beneficent consumerism is a despot. If I may borrow a little archaic terminology from those smug boomers who’re making big money from Google’s quiet march towards total information domination – you can dress a greedhead as a hipster, but underneath there’s still a greedhead. Google is the ubergreedhead in information terms – so greedy it seems it’ill never be satisfied until it owns or controls not only all the data but all the ways of getting it. Next stop Microsoft?
This is not just a paranoid geeky lawyer thing: the tech industry itself is becoming increasingly concerned at Googles datamining breadth and reach. In her a recent Eweek article Is It OK that Google Owns Us? Lisa Vass points out the sheer intrusiveness of the data that Google collects and holds about us :
Make no mistake, Google owns you. The ways in which it owns you are laid out in a complaint filed by EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) and other privacy groups with the Federal Trade Commission over Google’s proposed merger with targeted advertising company DoubleClick. Here’s the list of data that Google collects and retains and the technologies through which the company gets it, from the complaint:
Google search: any search term a user enters into Google;
Google Desktop: an index of the user’s computer files, e-mails, music, photos, and chat and Web browser history;
Google Talk: instant-message chats between users;
Google Maps: address information requested, often including the user’s home address for use in obtaining directions;
Google Mail (Gmail): a user’s e-mail history, with default settings set to retain emails “forever”;
Google Calendar: a user’s schedule as inputted by the user;
Google Orkut: social networking tool storing personal information such as name, location, relationship status, etc.;
Google Reader: which ATOM/RSS feeds a user reads;
Google Video/YouTube: videos watched by user;
Google Checkout: credit card/payment information for use on other sites.
Not to mention pictures when you thought you were unobserved:
Not only that, they keep the picture forever.
Google account holders that regularly use even a few of Google’s services must accept that the company retains a large quantity of information about that user, often for an unstated or indefinite length of time, without clear limitation on subsequent use or disclosure, and without an opportunity to delete or withdraw personal data even if the user wishes to terminate the service.
Google maintains records of all search strings and the associated IP addresses and time stamps for at least 18 to 24 months (although Google recently announced that it would only retain data for 18 months) and does not provide users with an expungement option. While it is true that many U.S.- based companies have not yet established a time frame for retention, there is a prevailing view among privacy experts that 18 to 24 months is unacceptable and possibly unlawful in many parts of the world.
Whatever your political leanings imagine what someone opposed to your politics could do with that information. Hell, just think of the leverage that kind of informational scope potentially gives Google against individuals, should it choose to use it. or should they choose or be compelled to let someone else use it.
It’s all reminiscent of the aims of the Total Infomation Awaremess Programme, which was allegedly kicked into the long grass by Congress in 2005, but which in reality is still being developed under different guises.
The FBI is seeking $12 million for the [National Security Branch Analysis Center] in FY2008, which will include 90,000 square feet of office space and a total of 59 staff, including 23 contractors and five FBI agents. Documents predict the NSAC will include six billion records by FY2012. This amounts to 20 separate “records” for each man, woman and child in the United States. The “universe of subjects will expand exponentially” with the expanded role of the NSAC, the Justice Department documents assert.
Some of this data will come from open public records, but these are intelligence files – the FBI plans an intelligence file on every single US resident containing at least 20 items of information.Where are they planning on getting this data from, exactly, and how?
The use of National Security Letters by the federal government to secretly obtain information about individuals, without a warrant and without due process, has been one of the ongoing scandals of Bushco’s Homeland Security apparatus. These figures are from 2005: how many have been issued since then, and what’s been done with the data?
The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters — one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people — are extending the bureau’s reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans.
Issued by FBI field supervisors, national security letters do not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or Congress. The executive branch maintains only statistics, which are incomplete and confined to classified reports. The Bush administration defeated legislation and a lawsuit to require a public accounting, and has offered no example in which the use of a national security letter helped disrupt a terrorist plot.
The burgeoning use of national security letters coincides with an unannounced decision to deposit all the information they yield into government data banks — and to share those private records widely, in the federal government and beyond. In late 2003, the Bush administration reversed a long-standing policy requiring agents to destroy their files on innocent American citizens, companies and residents when investigations closed. Late last month, President Bush signed Executive Order 13388, expanding access to those files for “state, local and tribal” governments and for “appropriate private sector entities,” which are not defined
In autumn 2006, Google started making overtures to the Republicans, even hiring two former GOP pols as lobbyists:
Under fire on Capitol Hill, Google Inc. has boosted its political muscle by creating its first political action committee while taking steps to reach out to Republicans.
The Mountain View search-engine company joins a sizable club of corporate titans that have established major political operations in Washington in hopes of influencing legislation and votes.
“Google probably learned that to be successful, you have to make campaign contributions,” said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles and an expert on money in politics. “I’m sure they’ve been told time and time again by everyone in Washington that ‘If you want to play, you play by our rules.’ ”
Google filed paperwork Thursday to register its political action committee, Google NetPAC, with the Federal Election Commission. The company intends to use the committee “to support candidates who promote an open and free Internet for our users,” according to Alan Davidson, Google’s Washington policy counsel.
In addition, Google bolstered its clout by hiring former Republican Sens. Dan Coats of Indiana and Connie Mack of Florida as outside lobbyists. The political veterans may go a long way in building Google’s ties with Republicans, a group widely considered to be the opposition based on the overwhelming preference by Google employees to make campaign contributions to Democrats.
Like I said, their image says one thing, their actions another.
What does all this mean? In my opinion what it boils down to is that Google cannot be trusted, the US government cannot be trusted, and because of ‘national security’ there is no way to know if they are working in concert.
Google disagree: they’re all like, “Duh, we turned down a government subpoena, we’re the good guys here”:
For a demonstration of Google’s trustworthiness, the Google faithful point to the search company’s having refused to comply with a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice demanding log entries on its searches—a demand that Google competitors AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo obeyed as the government investigated how often children might stumble upon pornography while using search engines.
But now they’re in bed with the Republicans, how long can Google cruise on the reputation of that one decision to oppose government intrusion? In any case, the reason the opposed wasn’t principled: it was about protecting commercial property.
For all we know they’re handing over info already. National Security letters don’t require a subpoena, and you ca’t say whether you had one or not – it’s secret.
For me this is about the ownership of our essential selves, which are being stolen from us in an unholy alliance beteen corporate information-processors and an intrusive and repressive state. On the other hand all of this may not bother you in the slightest: you may feel your life is an open book and you have nothing to be ashamed of. No worries then.
.
