31 ms·

Is the whole privacy on search thing really a big issue? Of course it is. Google and Facebook have been pushing the bounds of privacy repeatedly over the year

Is the whole privacy on search thing really a big issue? Of course it is. Google and Facebook have been pushing the bounds of privacy repeatedly over the years because it is in their financial best interest to do so. Their primary product isn't search or communication or maps. Their product is plain and simple people's personal information. And, becuase they are a corporation in the USA they are legally bound to maximize shareholder value. So, of course Google and Facebook have to erode the concept of online privacy. That is their product and that is the value that they are legally bound to maximize. If they were very clear and up front about this issue, and communicated that information in plain language to their users that would be one thing. But, they don't. Google doesn't every plainly say, "We track your location with your android phone. We track your searches on Google. We track what sites you visit though our advertising network. We track who you email when you use Gmail. If you use our calendar, we know what your schedule is. We track who you call when you use Google Voice. And, we want you to trust us to do the right thing with that data. We make a crap load of money using everything that we know about you to let other people sell stuff to you. Oh, and by the way, the government can have access to all that data without a search warrant." So, yes, I do think the privacy issue is pretty important. You have a couple of massive corporations who are for all intents and purposes forced to erode people's concept of privacy. And, if people are going to compete with Google, one of the areas they are very vulnerable is in the area of privacy. Gabriel has been kicking their ass on this, and it's an area where they are vulnerable to competitors. I say more power to DDG. It's a conversation that needs to be had, and more people need to know about this.

jamesaguilar 16y ago
> they are legally bound to maximize shareholder value Can you point to a single instance where a company was forced to commit some act that its managers reasonably thought was morally wrong because of the "law" that companies must maximize shareholder value? Personally I think this trope has no basis in fact and cannot explain why Google or any other company is compelled to do things that are wrong. There are many possible reasons why they would do something you disagree with: maybe they don't think it's wrong. Maybe they actively want to do something bad. Maybe you are not correct in your beliefs about what they are doing. But I think the reason you gave why they need to violate people's privacy is a cop out. There are also a number of counter-examples where corporations fail to maximize shareholder profits by donating to charity, taking principled environmental stances, etc. I don't know how you or anyone could come to the conclusion that the U.S. legal system rigidly enforces absolute profit maximization. > Oh, and by the way, the government can have access to all that data without a search warrant. Don't know where you are getting this from.
- yequalsx 16y ago
  "Can you point to a single instance where a company was forced to commit some act that its managers reasonably thought was morally wrong because of the "law" that companies must maximize shareholder value?" I can point to companies that sell tainted drugs, products that contain lead paint, that dump toxic materials in rivers, do shoddy work on oil wells, etc. They don't do this because they are required to maximize shareholder value. They do it because of their pursuit of money. The difference isn't a meaningful one in my mind. I think if the law was changed and companies were forced to consider societal interest then perhaps things would change for the better. Perhaps not. As it is, the law is a bad one in my opinion.
  - tedunangst 16y ago
    "Companies do bad stuff" != "Companies are legally required to do bad stuff".
    - yequalsx 16y ago
      I don't understand the purpose of your post. I didn't come close to claiming otherwise. I'm not claiming otherwise. I provided examples of companies doing bad stuff in the pursuit of money. I opined that a change in the law is needed. The fact that companies doing bad stuff does not equal companies being legally required to bad stuff supports my position. That is, even though there is no law requiring companies to do bad stuff they still sometimes do. I suggested that a change in the law might lead to companies doing bad stuff less frequently. Again, I don't understand the purpose of your post. Can you clarify?
      - jamesaguilar 16y ago
        You responded to a post arguing against the notion that companies are legally required to do things that are wrong for profit. You responded with an argument that many companies had done things wrong for profit, but without proving that they are legally required to do so. So your response was basically irrelevant, and the GP is pointing that out. As a technical matter, there are a number of ways that laws already require companies to consider the broad interests of society. Environmental regulations, taxes, tort law, and various other similar regulations, not to mention the natural pressure that the best interest of society tends to be somewhat compatible with profit, all influence companies to choose the option that is best for society as a whole most of the time. I wonder what specific law you are proposing when you say that laws should be changed to make companies consider the "societal interest."
sid3k 16y ago
If the goal is privacy, there are many search engines respecting privacy already. The goal is better search results! Since I don't have a Google account and ban many evil domain names such as googleanalytics.com, facebook.com, they can't track my information already. for me, there is no need to use a search engine with crappy user interface.

jamesaguilar 16y ago

> they are legally bound to maximize shareholder value Can you point to a single instance where a company was forced to commit some act that its managers reasonably thought was morally wrong because of the "law" that companies must maximize shareholder value? Personally I think this trope has no basis in fact and cannot explain why Google or any other company is compelled to do things that are wrong. There are many possible reasons why they would do something you disagree with: maybe they don't think it's wrong. Maybe they actively want to do something bad. Maybe you are not correct in your beliefs about what they are doing. But I think the reason you gave why they need to violate people's privacy is a cop out. There are also a number of counter-examples where corporations fail to maximize shareholder profits by donating to charity, taking principled environmental stances, etc. I don't know how you or anyone could come to the conclusion that the U.S. legal system rigidly enforces absolute profit maximization. > Oh, and by the way, the government can have access to all that data without a search warrant. Don't know where you are getting this from.

yequalsx 16y ago
"Can you point to a single instance where a company was forced to commit some act that its managers reasonably thought was morally wrong because of the "law" that companies must maximize shareholder value?" I can point to companies that sell tainted drugs, products that contain lead paint, that dump toxic materials in rivers, do shoddy work on oil wells, etc. They don't do this because they are required to maximize shareholder value. They do it because of their pursuit of money. The difference isn't a meaningful one in my mind. I think if the law was changed and companies were forced to consider societal interest then perhaps things would change for the better. Perhaps not. As it is, the law is a bad one in my opinion.
- tedunangst 16y ago
  "Companies do bad stuff" != "Companies are legally required to do bad stuff".
  - yequalsx 16y ago
    I don't understand the purpose of your post. I didn't come close to claiming otherwise. I'm not claiming otherwise. I provided examples of companies doing bad stuff in the pursuit of money. I opined that a change in the law is needed. The fact that companies doing bad stuff does not equal companies being legally required to bad stuff supports my position. That is, even though there is no law requiring companies to do bad stuff they still sometimes do. I suggested that a change in the law might lead to companies doing bad stuff less frequently. Again, I don't understand the purpose of your post. Can you clarify?
    - jamesaguilar 16y ago
      You responded to a post arguing against the notion that companies are legally required to do things that are wrong for profit. You responded with an argument that many companies had done things wrong for profit, but without proving that they are legally required to do so. So your response was basically irrelevant, and the GP is pointing that out. As a technical matter, there are a number of ways that laws already require companies to consider the broad interests of society. Environmental regulations, taxes, tort law, and various other similar regulations, not to mention the natural pressure that the best interest of society tends to be somewhat compatible with profit, all influence companies to choose the option that is best for society as a whole most of the time. I wonder what specific law you are proposing when you say that laws should be changed to make companies consider the "societal interest."

sid3k 16y ago

If the goal is privacy, there are many search engines respecting privacy already. The goal is better search results! Since I don't have a Google account and ban many evil domain names such as googleanalytics.com, facebook.com, they can't track my information already. for me, there is no need to use a search engine with crappy user interface.