{"id":326,"date":"2010-02-13T10:31:19","date_gmt":"2010-02-13T17:31:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.backwoodshome.com\/blogs\/ClaireWolfe\/?p=326"},"modified":"2010-02-13T10:31:19","modified_gmt":"2010-02-13T17:31:19","slug":"the-buzz-on-googles-arrogant-goof","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.clairewolfe.com\/blog\/2010\/02\/13\/the-buzz-on-googles-arrogant-goof\/","title":{"rendered":"The buzz on Google&#8217;s arrogant goof"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I didn&#8217;t pay much attention earlier this week when Google announced Buzz. Didn&#8217;t get too flapped when the t00bz immediately started buzzing with complaints about privacy, either.<\/p>\n<p>Yawn, what else is new? Privacy horror stories are par for the course for social-networking sites, and aside from that, those sites are mostly boring as dirt. (Who  wants to know about other people&#8217;s trivial daily activities?)<\/p>\n<p>But I&#8217;m thinking this new Google mess &#8212; even after <a href=\"http:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/googles-nice-improvements-to-buzz-dont-correct-major-privacy-flaw-2010-2\" target=\"_blank\">the alleged fixes<\/a> &#8212; is a different order of magnitude. The former &#8220;do no evil&#8221; people did four really evil things:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>They forced a Buzz account on every gmail user without asking. Tacky.\n<li>They pre-selected &#8220;followers&#8221; for every new Buzz account. Max tacky. If they wanted to jump-start the service, they could easily have presented a list of <i>suggested<\/i> contacts and allowed the account owner to approve or block individuals. *\n<li>They &#8212; OMG! &#8212; chose those followers by analyzing whom gmail users have been <i>privately<\/i> corresponding with.\n<li>And &#8212; OMG, OMG! &#8212; they made all the follower lists public by default.\n<\/ol>\n<p>All the net-yammer seems to be about the latter two. Perhaps rightly so. People checking their new Buzz accounts have discovered themselves linked (as follower or followed) by <a href=\"http:\/\/www.google.com\/support\/forum\/p\/gmail\/thread?tid=1d4814dce830e8e4&#038;hl=en\" target=\"_blank\">their landlords<\/a>, strangers they contacted once through Craigslist, and in one quickly famous case, an abusive ex-spouse. Lovely.<\/p>\n<p>Psychiatrists may have their patients publicly listed as followers. Investigative reporters and bloggers may have their sources revealed to the world, and so on. Yeah, that&#8217;ll go over real big, especially in third-world countries where they &#8220;disappear&#8221; people for that sort of activity.<\/p>\n<p>So sure, evil acts 3 &#038; 4 are killer bad.<\/p>\n<p>But more fundamentally, the entire process of imposing accounts and contact lists on the unwilling, even if they <i>hadn&#8217;t<\/i> also pillaged privacy, is so high-handed that it speaks volumes about the mindset that controls the Google empire. Who do they think they are <a href=\"http:\/\/www.google.com\/support\/forum\/p\/gmail\/thread?tid=7ba1f6d5e49a5e32&#038;hl=en\" target=\"_blank\">forcing all that crap on people<\/a> &#8212; a government?<\/p>\n<p>Google&#8217;s alleged fixes all involve making it easier to find opt-out options. But reading their official releases, <a href=\"http:\/\/gmailblog.blogspot.com\/2010\/02\/millions-of-buzz-users-and-improvements.html\" target=\"_blank\">it&#8217;s stunning how vastly they&#8217;ve missed the point<\/a> and it&#8217;s horrifying that they&#8217;re attempting to spin this as some minor technical glitchette. <\/p>\n<p>From there, things just get worse.<\/p>\n<p>It appears that no matter how diligently you hide <i>your<\/i> contacts, you have absolutely no control over how <a href=\"http:\/\/www.betanews.com\/article\/Does-Google-Buzz-offer-better-privacy-than-Facebook\/1265904998?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed:bn(BetanewsFullContentFeed-BN)\" target=\"_blank\">others choose to violate <i>your<\/i> privacy<\/a>. If they&#8217;ve got you on their lists and they keep their lists public, you&#8217;re screwed unless you can manage to remove yourself or them as followers (something many people are <a href=\"http:\/\/www.google.com\/support\/forum\/p\/gmail\/thread?tid=1244f64bf52b75ca&#038;hl=en\" target=\"_blank\">having trouble doing<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, it appears that any time you post to Buzz, your post becomes public and searchable by default, unless you explicitly make it private. Another completely bassackwards feature.<\/p>\n<p>When gmail was first set up, I swore I&#8217;d never correspond with anyone who used it because of its built-in tracking of message content.<\/p>\n<p>Unfortunately, five or six people very close to me opted to use gmail, and I couldn&#8217;t cut off all contact with them. I comforted myself that nearly all correspondence between us is encrypted.<\/p>\n<p>When the Buzz buzz finally got through my skull, I was worried that my emphatically non-gmail address might have been compromised. But it seems not. Google is only compromising other gmail users &#8212; who are then compromising each other.<\/p>\n<p>The process is quite arbitrary, too. I checked with one gmail-using friend who said the only follower Google had chosen for her was a person she used to have business contacts with. Her best friend, also a gmail user, with whom she regularly corresponds, wasn&#8217;t listed. So it&#8217;s weird.<\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;ve never been a Google-basher, although I&#8217;ve been increasingly uneasy with everything the company does. I still think they run a good, lean, useful search engine. But the Buzz fracas is the final straw.<\/p>\n<p>Time to dump Google.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.startpage.com\" target=\"_blank\">StartPage<\/a> is every bit as good a search engine and is a sterling protector of privacy.<\/p>\n<p>There are other email services aplenty.<\/p>\n<p>Maps you can get from <a href=\"http:\/\/www.mapquest.com\" target=\"_blank\">MapQuest<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Those creepy Big Brother arial and street-level photos? Who needs &#8217;em?<\/p>\n<p>Google might want to act like a government, but it doesn&#8217;t have a governmental monopoly. So we can all chuck it. Please, if you care about privacy, do.<\/p>\n<p>If you have to stick with Google, <a href=\"http:\/\/lifehacker.com\/5469388\/stop-google-buzz-from-showing-the-world-your-contacts\" target=\"_blank\">here&#8217;s some advice<\/a> on how to turn off the worst features. And keep in mind that this situation, Google&#8217;s fixes, and information about the mess, are still evolving.<\/p>\n<p>* Note, as of this evening, Google has <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2010\/02\/13\/AR2010021303881.html\" target=\"_blank\">switched to the suggestion model.<\/a> Why they didn&#8217;t do this in the first place, who knows. But at least the action shows that, unlike a government, Google actually listens to its critics.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I didn&#8217;t pay much attention earlier this week when Google announced Buzz. Didn&#8217;t get too flapped when the t00bz immediately started buzzing with complaints about privacy, either. Yawn, what else is new? Privacy horror stories are par for the course for social-networking sites, and aside from that, those sites are mostly boring as dirt. (Who wants to know about other people&#8217;s trivial daily activities?) But I&#8217;m thinking this new Google mess &#8212; even after the alleged fixes &#8212; is a different order of magnitude. The former &#8220;do no evil&#8221; people did four really evil things: They forced a Buzz account&#8230;<\/p>\n<div class=\"more-link-wrapper\"><a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.clairewolfe.com\/blog\/2010\/02\/13\/the-buzz-on-googles-arrogant-goof\/\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">The buzz on Google&#8217;s arrogant goof<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[19,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-326","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-miscellaneous","category-privacy-and-self-ownership","ratio-natural","entry"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.clairewolfe.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.clairewolfe.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.clairewolfe.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.clairewolfe.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.clairewolfe.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=326"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.clairewolfe.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.clairewolfe.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=326"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.clairewolfe.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=326"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.clairewolfe.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=326"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}