Google Search Invasion of Privacy

I react quickly to a person's choice of words. In this case, here are the trigger words for me: divulge, disseminate, and disinterest. To quickly access the common meanings, I used the "OneLook" search engine with the following results:

Cobalt,

I like to avoid logomachies. I do not consider a phone book to contain knowledge that is available only to few. And disinterest was your choice so why is it being used to reference my provision of the link through which your information could be removed?

The bottom line is that anyone has, in their power the means to remove their information from either a phone book or Google. Google has the right to reject a request to remove a public listing from their index but they go out of their way to create a page that allows you to request removal.

So what is the point? That, if you have a publicly listed phone number and are too lazy to fill out a form your privacy is violated? Google does not go get your number and list it. It just indexes numbers that are already public. And even then, Google provides means for you to remove your number from their index.

So, if you don't want to have your info on google you can have it removed. I do not see the basis for complaint. Do you want them to remove other people's numbers as well? People who do not share your fears about their privacy? I'm not trying to be combative, I simply have seen many "Google is big brother" complaints that are completely baseless paranoia. This case is a valid concern but if they give you the power to decide for yourself whether your information is indexed I do not see anything untoward about what Google is doing.

For Google to divulge, disseminate and to profit on this information by facilitating it, when they do not have to is my concern. The clear reason of this feature is to provide a tool to people other than the person publicized. Were it to primarily benefit the person themselves, perhaps I could look at this in an indifferent light.

Perhaps there is a distinct gap in the reactions of some people merely by age if not experience. For instance, you may be unaware of how long it took and how hard it was to enact legislation to secure the FOA (Freedom of Information ACT). Just as Americans are given the right and access to get a copy of their own file, this availability is consistently advertised and published in a multitude of sources and re-curring references daily.

The major credit reporting agencies retain much power in collecting such personal information that may or may not be accurate. The information these agencies use is paid for to (you guessed it) third party providers. And still other businesses who access the agency reports pay for those agency services. It took a while for Americans to have the "right" to archived and privileged information and intimate details about their lives collected by these financial profiteers!

And finally, the repercussions of the USA Patriot Act and Patriot Act 2 are going to make such "features and utilities" such as this Google example, a most "Patriotic" and "responsible" and even morally-important service to the "Good guys"....ahem.....

PS. I appreciate the dialogue and am not trying to 'fight' or stir up any animosity here. I do most appreciate your explanation of opposing views.

I have much less knowledge of the technical aspects than either of you, but I really am confused by what bothers you about Google, cobalt. I agree that there is a ton of private information floating about, and I'm very very careful about where, for example, I put my social security number. They ask for it everywhere, and I usually just flatly refuse to give it. I rarely have a problem with that. I NEVER have typed it out on a computer, have never sent it in an email.

But how is the proliferation of private information Google's fault? It seems that the most that could be asked of them is to have a mechanism whereby one can request removal of some personal info, and as as Craven says, they do.

I would be MORE concerned about some kind of legislative curbs on what Google can and can't index. It is enormously useful for me to be able to search for, say, the Arab perspective on the war, and know that I'm likely to find a variety of balanced sources.

Cobalt,

I don't appreciate the age card. You have the link to remove yourself from Google if you wish. If that helps anyone that it will have been worth the effort.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Boy I'm glad may name is John Smith

Give 'em hell, cobalt[/i]

Craven - I did not intend for you to take my explanation as an "age card". I was trying to phrase it and explain it in a context of one's personal experience. Here's what I said:

[quote]Perhaps there is a distinct gap in the reactions of some people merely by age if not experience. For instance, you may be unaware of how long it took and how hard it was to enact legislation to secure the FOA (Freedom of Information ACT). [/quote]

If you did not live thru such times, and you were not a political dissenter in the 60's, 70's and 80's in America, these things may not have the impact to you that others may have experienced and experienced at great disadvantage. For instance, I was co-editor of an underground newspaper in 1971-2 for which I would have been suspended from the university were I discovered to contribute!

I was in constant concern that the "Placement Center" of the university not discover any of my "activities" outside of classes because I did not want to risk having a "note" placed into my personal files. One such "note" described a male friend as having long hair that curled at shoulder-length and he wore an earring. This was 'code' for "he is gay" at that time - a warning not to hire him as a teacher as he was certified and wished to be.

As students, it took us three years to win the right to even VIEW our own student records! These may seem minor events, but at the time, they were deadly serious in consequence. When I was in school to become a teacher, the current state law was that if I was 'caught' in a place where OTHER people were smoking pot or doing drugs, then I would permanently lose my teaching certification! Perhaps this explanation will serve to enlighten my concerns on such issues? Both the release of information and the secrecy of information concerns me.

Sozobe: Next post to answer your question.... and thanks to both for writing in.

How would you feel if this were provided online? After all, a social security number IS a matter of record and is available in a multitude of places should anyone decide to search for it. The social security number issues have much to do with the fact that they were never to be used as "proof of identity" which is how so very many businesses and financial entities use it now. Did you know that on a death certificate, one's Social Security number not only appears, but it is published online in genealogical sites even within days?


I did not say Google was at "fault", I was trying to point out that Google is profiting on this feature AND this feature is profitable to those others that want to find your contact information, NOT to YOU! This is a bit like the sites that publicly list known sex-offender's and their addresses. Some folks see the "good" of the endeavor over the risks to potential errors and hardship to the innocent family members thus encumbered. Remember, FIRST the information is provided by Google - Google did not seek your permission. Next, a person must accidentally (?) learn of this variety of enhanced search tools for residential addresses and phone numbers. Finally, the person must now take retroactive action to call a halt to the practice for their name only.

The following is a quote of what my concern is in a nutshell:


[size=large]This comment of yours is of great validity too, and thanks for bringing this point up:[/size]
"I would be MORE concerned about some kind of legislative curbs on what Google can and can't index. "

[size=large]The next part is puzzling to me, because Google News indexes commercial newspapers and media: " It is enormously useful for me to be able to search for, say, the Arab perspective on the war, and know that I'm likely to find a variety of balanced sources."

If I am looking for a variety of balanced sources, I am more likely to go to the Information Clearing House, IMC, or Technorati Current Events. These indexes and aggregators look beyond the commercial resources - r][/size]

Technorati Current Events (Note that Google is prominately featured on the site)

and
Independent Media Center

and
Information Clearing House, Information You Won't See on CNN or Fox Mooooos

[size=large]Hopefully, this all helps put my thoughts into a context you understand if not agree with, lol? And for Craven too, may have to remain an agree to disagree issue![/size]

I'm still confused, Cobalt. If it's not Google's fault, then what is the problem? Are you saying that there are things Google won't index that the other links you gave do? I did several experiments and everything I found with the links you provided I found with Google, too.

The problem with social security numbers is not Google's problem. The problem, such as it is, is the fact that it is placed on a genealogical site. Without that step -- going from private to published on the web -- it would not be accessible. That is, again, not Google's fault.

I'm just confused because you have phrased this explicitly in terms of Google. If you were just talking about the proliferation of private information available these days, I'd agree that it's a shame. If you were just talking about how, say, supermarket "savings" cards track all of your expenses and use that information for who knows what, I'd shake my head and agree that it's all very disturbing. But Google? Google just isn't the problem.

sozobe<

If you enter your telephone number into Google's search engine, not only will your name and address appear, but so will a link to a map that would
lead anyone directly to your residence.

If this does not disturb you, I would be surprised. No, Google is not at fault, but it has become a primary source to invade your privacy.

Perhaps this is the point cobalt is attempting to make, though I do not, of course, speak for her.

As for the "age card," I will add that I am old enough to remember the McCarthy Era, one of the darkest periods in our nation's history. We are headed for another period of that ilk if we abandon our rights to privacy to a search engine and to an administration which ignores privacy rights under the guise of "Homeland Security."

Only if you:

A) have a listed phone number

AND

B) you decide that your concerns about your privacy are not strong enough motivation to use google's provided form and request removal yet enough to hold them somewhat responsible.

Craven<

Google never notifies the people in the phone book that a map to their residence will be provided to anybody who uses Google.

I've never received such notification. Has anyone else?

Also, I've never received a form telling me they would remove my listing from their search. Certainly I could request it online. Not all people in the country, however, have easy access to the internet. These people really have no idea their privacy is being invaded by the Google listing.

This failure on Google's part does not mean it is part of some conspiracy.
It does mean, however, that millions of people have their names listed at Google and do not know it. They also don't know of the Google form to remove them from the list.

To have one's name in the Google search engine may be inconsequential to you, Craven. To me, however, it is just one more way that chips away at our basic Constitutional rights. Enough "chips" taken away from the Constitution, and you have a document which is meaningless.

Craven, I know you are a highly intelligent man. I also know that you have more knowledge about computers than the average Joe and Jane.
To you it is small potatoes to have Joe and Jane listed. This listing was never asked for by them, nor do they have knowledge of the form which removes their name. There are many Joes and Janes who have never even been online.

Thus, I will have to join others here who insist the Google listing is unwarranted. Whether you call it a list, an index or whatever, the fact remains that millions of people, unbeknownst to them, can have maps to their residences revealed on the internet in an instant.

But the only difference is the "instant" part. These people are listed in the phone book. It is really not any great trial for anyone who wants to to look them up in the phone book, and then consult a nearby map.

'People in the USA have a right to privacy, but they do not have a right to anonymity.' paraphrasing - Alan Gerschowitz (sp)

There apparently are always some people who will think of themselves as vulnerable and/or subject to an attack of sorts if they leave some kind of trail - paper or etherwise - to their homes (personality).
Those same people are usually adament about screaming out their envisioned helplessness.
What happens when that happens?

Editing=I wasn't talking about you cobalt, having met - I know you aren't in that category.

I guarantee that I can find any address listed in Google without using Google faster than anyone here can using Google.

williamhenry,

It's not Google's job to let you know about what they do, it is also not their job to protect your privacy.

The resources Google provides are already INSTANTLY accessible to anyone with an internet connection. Google's map service is outsourced. The bottom line is that Google is merely linking to maps already available on hundreds of sites.

You mention Google not notifying you, why should they? Are you in their listings? If you are then you have a listed number that is available on hudreds of other sources. My question is, why the Google wail? And don't give me the excusethat "now it's on the internet". Any listed numbers were on the internet (on a multitude of sites) long before Google chose to do so.

I don't get why someone who has absolute control of whether their information is listed would complain about it. I also strongly suspect that those complaining in this thread do not have any Google listings. Can anyone either confirm or deny that?

Hmmm - dare I enter this fray?

If I were to complain about how Google has affected privacy, it would likely be because Google, as the most famous search engine, has allowed many people who would probably not otherwise have known how to do it, to access detailed information about people who are probably not aware enough of what Google does, or what the net does, to know that their info is so readily accessible.

Craven - I do not think it quite fair to use yourself as an example of ease of accessing info - you, and people like you with high grade computer skils, can, of course do things like this very fast sans Google. I would surmise that the average person has not learned to do this.

You could, of course, argue that people OUGHT to know this - but lots of people do not have access to computer and net knowledge.

This kind of very easy, and therefore, I think, newly easy and widely disseminated access to detailed info, worries me because of my knowledge of, for instance, of how many people are being stalked by violent ex-partners. People tend to assume that moving states is reasonably protective - although most are now recognizing that this is not enough. It is easy for people who are neither paper nor computer literate to overlook the ways in which information is available - and now available so easily with little knowledge of how to trace people.

This is certainly not Google's FAULT - but it is out there - and makes life for some even harder than it is. It removes a layer of filtering in people's protective camouflage.

Google makes things easier, but it does not enable things to happen that would not otherwise happen. Nothing is on Google and only on Google. I'll say again that I AM concerned with how little privacy there is these days, in a general way, and how that information is being used -- but the issue I have is with people parting with their information all unawares, rather than Google.

If someone is being stalked by an ex, that ex will find them, Google or no Google, if the person being stalked gives out personal information. There are myriad ways to get it, high tech or very low tech (i.e. bribes, being clean-cut and therefore "harmless" looking so the erstwhile landlord gives a forwarding address, etc., etc.)

I do see what you're saying about easier, but I still have a problem with "...and?" Google makes things easier, so... it should be shut down? There should be curbs on what it is allowed to index? Where does that go?

I cannot speak for anyone elso here, Sozobe - but I was not suggesting such a thing.

I am merely stating what I think is a reality.

In a way it's like visiting a library - I used to go there to look at reverse directories and other reference info way back in the old days.