The "I have nothing to hide so I don't need privacy" argument is nonsense.
Agreed!
A naïve user can attempt to avoid Google's services but almost every site uses Google Ads. This is one of Google's big guns for gathering Internet usage behavior from even those users who avoid the search giant. It's simple, a user visiting any site with Google Ads (most) instantly reveals their visit to Google.
...
Regardless of dodging Google, you shouldn't be so eager to give up user freedoms or privacy regardless of Google's capabilities to track users. I personally think Google is the new Evil Empire and I cheer the real OS and security advances made in Microsoft's research OS singularity.
Your bank knows where you've been every time you use plastic to pay for something. Does that mean you should pay for everything with cash? There is no point in preventing Google from collecting this information, because a) it's not sensitive, and b) the reason they're collecting it in the first place is to make your internet experience better, not to find ways to con you in to buying crap you don't need, or to sell your profile to the government, or to spam your inbox. I don't see the privacy issue here. Who cares if Google knows what porn you look at? It just means your porn searches will be more relevant to what you're looking for. BFD.
There's a
frightening difference between a bank and Google. You knowingly volunteer information to a bank including any personal information required for service, purchases, withdrawals, deposits, etc... What is known by a bank is a direct consequence of the service the bank provides. Merely visiting a site with Google Ads exposes you to Google. This enables Google Ads to deliver directed advertisements which does have its advantages. Is the naïve user aware of this? Probably not. You claim its not sensitive, but
history indicates potential. That's not anywhere near as bad as computing on Google's Cloud: store all your personal files on Google and expose your usage behavior.
Another problem with Google isn't so much Google itself. Users, companies, organizations and governments are increasingly relying on Google for all sorts of services ranging from trivial to sensitive. What about malicious hackers? What kinds of information does a successful attacker have access to? What kinds of sensitive services can an attacker disable? News and weather channels, for example, rely on Google Earth during live television broadcasts. As another example, many websites rely on AppEngine for database and similar services. For the same reasons I don't like monopolies, I certainly don't like one company having all that information.
Do you think Google magically profits from hosting the Internet's most heavily trafficked search engine, writing free software, hosting websites (AppEngine) and open source projects among other things? Where's their income? Do you know of any pay services Google provides? I wager that Google makes a majority of their income through advertising and sales of statistics collected by their services. Social networks are similar except they are arguably more empowered than Google. These types of companies are in the business of advertising and collecting/selling information. To think these companies can profit otherwise is lunacy. Facebook, for example, was known to be malicious about deleting user profiles. Profiles could be deactivated and later reactivated but the information was never deleted. Many people have written blogs and stories about how difficult it was to actually delete yourself from Facebook.
Anyways, I had no problem with Google until last Thursday. Chrome OS really brings Big Brother to mind. Everything else Google does is nothing by comparison. It worries me for privacy reasons and the potential direction Chrome OS may take us in computer technology. Some web applications are appropriate (e.g. e-mail, calendar), but I think Chrome OS is abusing the concept and accidentally reinventing a re-branded variant of time sharing. If you accept that Google's business is collecting/selling information, then Chrome OS's design is no accident.
I heard/read second-hand that Microsoft is interested in web applications to the extent that Google is. If that's true, I could definitely see the
Intellectual Property (IP) issue as a major motivation. Microsoft probably takes huge losses in piracy of their own products and is probably hounded by organizations like RIAA and MPAA. A Microsoft Web OS would probably be IP oriented. Imagine the IP services Microsoft could provide to 3rd parties. Take matlab for example. It's commonly pirated in academic circles. A company like MathWorks could write a matlab web application and pay Microsoft a service fee to host their product. Microsoft Web OS users could then purchase access to the matlab web application without owning a physical copy of the executable effectively eliminating piracy.
I hope technology like this never comes to fruition. Most people are not thieves and its not fair that they should have to pay because of the few who are.
