Google Conspiracy Theory?

Yesterday, I was rightly picked up on a few points in my article entitled 'Google's Gonna Get You' by SEO expert and entrepreneur, Mark Lewis and he was worried as to whether I was fuelling some 'Conspiracy Theory' on Google. I am not sure that is the case, as I have stated before, I am a huge fan.

But now that he has raised the subject, it is worth exploring that the company that has done so much for releasing the power of the web has big plans for the future. Whether those plans were the brainchild of the two founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, it is not clear. What is clear is that CEO, Eric Schmidt, is taking a greater lead in the company and perhaps he has a point to prove. Schmidt was the driving force behind Novell which had so many high hopes of being the dominant network player. Schmidt is an unusual man in Silicon Valley terms, he is one of the few, if not the only, people to become a $billionaire via stock options, perhaps he considers that to be the 'nearly man' route.

In the final quarter of 2008, Google had revenues of $5.7bn and made a profit of $382m, down from the previous quarter of $1.29bn - Google is a seriously huge and profitable company. And this revenue is almost all due to its search engine technology which creates rankings.

In theory, for any string of words you enter in the search box, Google will report back impartially based on its complex algorithms which work on raw data acquired by 'crawlers' which go through the vast amount of content on the web. This is called 'naturals' and is supposedly very distinct from the paid-for results which is the box of 3 or so main choices at the top of the page and the context sensitive adverts down the aide. To get higher up the rankings and so appear more regularly in the 'naturals', SEO experts advise the use of 'keywords' embedded in the html on your web pages - these are invisible to the readers but Google's army of crawlers knows how to find them.

For mortals like me, it's a confusing subject. My website and my blog contain my name and yet if you 'Google' it, only my LinkedIn and Ecademy profiles occur, no mention of the fact I submit articles to ezine, Newsvine or author a blog. In fact, only if you use the exact titles of my blog articles will you ever get to any of them, and that is by no means in all cases. Yet I have written over 200 articles and written hundreds and thousands of words. By contrast, Nigel Dunn, a jeweller in Worcester, a wood shavings expert and a song writer appear many times before I get a mention despite the fact at some points in my life I have been on national radio and quoted in National Newspaper articles as well as industry magazines (I haven't had my full 15 minutes yet by far, believe me).

It's a perplexing subject and, having been in involved in parts of the industry, I know that some companies specialise in getting you much higher up the 'naturals' and that costs money.

What Conspiracy?

No company becomes this big, this quick by being benevolent.

It is obvious and a commercial fact that those who pay the bills get the service and that is perfectly fair. Also, no company gets this big without aspirations to get bigger and, as usual, Google has Microsoft in its sights. Would this have been the strategy at outset by Page and Brin? I doubt it - they were kids who had a superb idea, had great fun making it work and getting rich beyond their dreams as a nice side effect. When Schmidt took over, things changed somewhat.

Google Apps was to be the way of the future. Google Mail is already a very interesting and useful take on email. Hosted entirely online by Google, it arranges mail by subject strings and it means it is far easier to search for things than, say, MS Outlook. Again, the founders' influence is very much at the fore. But things get a little hairy after that. Google Apps is all about hosting your entire set of office applications in 'The Cloud' along with all the content. Across the globe, a vast network of storage and servers, owned by Google, is being commissioned to support this. Some major companies have already switched to this new suite and embraced the 'devil' of hosted applications - they have fantastic economic and, for that matter, environmental advantages, which I have blogged about before.

Then up popped, iGoogle. This neat application sat as a dashboard/portal in your browser, it arranged and delivered your chosen content regularly to your PC. The weather, sports news, interesting industry snippets - you name it, you can have it. The trouble was, when you first downloaded the tool, there was an innocent looking option to allow your progress across the web to be recorded - by Google. The outcry was similar to the furore surrounding Facebook's bodged implementation of something similar. It was, in the view of many, an invasion of privacy in order to be able to make more money. In essence, this was true, but it did not fit with the shiny, friendly face of the Google we knew.

More recently, there has been furore about Google's addition to its Maps facility. Not only do we have terrain, road and the highly detailed satellite views but we now get cameras with 360 degree views of the areas at the addresses entered. Whinging civil righters felt this was an intrusion on privacy while there was a real case where a woman who had changed address to avoid a violent partner was in view outside her new home. Google's ability to fuzz out faces and number plates had not worked properly and some people or vehicles were recognisable. Of course, all views were freely available over the entire web.

In reality, Google Street View is a fantastic addition to already amazing facilities at Google Maps. I don't think anyone would really think theives are going to get better ideas on who to rob and where but they may check a target address as before. Terrorists aren't going to get any better idea of a place than a satellite view or going in person to check out an area. But for me, as a visitor to an office in Valencia next week, I could even check out what the road looks like, the office block and the parking facilities.

How cool is that?

Google and The Future

There is always a risk that companies who grow fast have to become more aggressive and grabbing on order to grow similarly in the future. Microsoft became an all-consuming ogre off the back of a virtual monopoly in the PC market and many, like myself, would argue they have some of the least innovative products on the market but get through by sheer presence, the old IBM way - you never got fired by choosing them even if the products aren't the best. Microsoft and IBM have shown that there is a time when you are big enough, that you can become complacent and the innovative edge wanes. Companies like Microsoft need to be challenged to keep moving and Google is certainly doing that.

But Google is different. There is still a nerdy, geeky feel about what you see. Presentation isn't everything at Google and the information is the important part still. They may be exercising too much muscle over the content providers like newspapers but we could equally argue they have had a good long run at things and maybe it is time to innovate more. Google genuinely is still providing excellent products and facilities and is clearly innovating at every step. It is still free to consumers in the main, corporates are different. I like 'The Cloud' concept and I have little fear of the idea of hosted applications and data - I have worked for two companies in that field and use datacentres and hosted applications extensively today. I disagree with companies that believe there is either a risk or that the web is unreliable - data outages on private networks are so common that people don't notice anymore while the web is obvious.

To get prominence on the web costs money and requires some skill - it's clear I haven't got enough of either to get my blog or website into real prominence. I have only been at it 3 years and still those crawlers and bots haven't found me. I don't blame Google for that - I'm just glad, like so many others, that I have a little pitched area of my own where people can find me if they look hard enough.

Unlike my net-colleague, Mark Lewis, I am cynical of the 'big company getting bigger' syndrome but like Mark, I think Google is a company to embrace rather than fear. There is no conspiracy other than to make money and bring cool services to all users.

Who could deny them that?

Big Brother Is Watching You - And It Ain't So Cool

Hot foot on my article yesterday on Google Street View, today there is an announcement that the Government may start watching conversations and information on sites like Facebook. It has been further suggested that the Government will start watching emails, texts and internet contacts.

It has branded a 'Snoopers' Charter' and this time it doesn't seem to be in line with the 'Way cool' philosophy of the seemingly philanthropic gestures made by Google. Should we now start being afraid?

Is this stepping too far into this nice new technology and spoiling the party or should we start getting getting all indignant and joining the prissy campaigners who tell us our privacy is being violated?

The Snoopers' Charter

The proposals by the Government are to keep user details on sites like Facebook. The home Office claims that the information may be vital in combating crime gangs and terrorists who 'might' use the sites. The idea follows a similar proposal to record every phone call, text and email and internet visit made in the UK. Ministers say at this stage they are only interested in user details and not conversations which may take place on sites like Facebook, Bebo and MySpace.

The Government denies it is trying to intrude on people's personal lives and that they were merely trying to keep up with technology. A Home Office spokesman reiterated the view that there was no interest in the content of information but that the aim was to be able to collect communication data for law enforcement agencies to use to gather evidence and prevent things like terrorism. The same same spokesman confirmed the proposal for recording the content of emails, phone calls and texts - again saying the content of the conversations was not the target.

Home Office Minister, Vernon Croaker, whose name sounds straight out of gangland, confirmed the Government was aiming to act on social networks as they were not covered by EU legislation. He acknowledged that it would raise fresh concerns about the right to privacy and acknowledged it was 'an extremely difficult area'.

The Reaction

Facebook's Chief Privacy Officer, for indeed they have one, Chris Kelly, said that the company was considering lobbying Ministers over the issue and described it as 'overkill'. Lib Dem MP, the appropriately named Tom Brake, pointed out the websites contained sensitive personal data which could easily leak from any Government-controlled database. Pointing out the extended proposals on monitoring emails, phone calls, texts and internet visits, he branded it as 'The most expensive Snoopers Charter in history' He also pointed out that information like people's sexual orientation, religious beliefs and political views could be monitored.

A View From The Public

Yesterday, I suggested that maybe we should lighten up about Google's aims with Street View where cameras could give people looking at Google Maps the opportunity to have a quick look at the cities they may be visiting or just looking out of interest. Already Street View had received a complaint via the Information Commission (ICO) that over 200 people had been identified in the pictures causing 'embarrassment and damage' with one woman identified after she had moved house to get away from a violent partner - she was seen outside her new home.

We generally agree that Google's intentions are just to be 'way cool' and have clever and neat gadgets and applications which lighten up our lives, are helpful and make life more interesting. If they make a few bucks at the same time, so what. The same could be said of sites like You Tube, Facebook, LinkedIn, Bebo, MySpace and the plethora of social networks that exist. In general. it is all just good fun, hip and fashionable. The abuses tend to be minimal but there have been definite instances where embarrassing or possibly sinister scenes have resulted in people getting into trouble or fired at work.

The famous sporting phrase 'What goes on on tour, stays on tour' has been replaced by 'What goes on tour, goes on Facebook.'

Now the Government has stepped in and could be ready to urinate on the fun. The Government has many ways of recording who exists in Britain, from births to deaths, immigration records to electoral roles, bank accounts, tax records, school attendances - you name it, our information should be there and pretty much in plain view. So delving into social networking sites on the face of it seems like overkill.

The threat of gang crime and terrorism is very real. However, I would argue very strongly that just by knowing someone's social networking handle and profile information you are hardly likely to spot that Osama Bin Ladin has a Facebook profile and invites members to join him on his cause. I don't think it is likely that he has a Twitter handle and his latest 'tweet' says he is 'cleaning the cave and doing a little scheming before lunch'.

I would argue that if terrorists do use Facebook and the likes then they possibly use handles so that they are less conspicuous but then again I don't have a criminal brain. I would suggest that the only way to spot criminals and terrorists on such sites, on the internet in general, via emails, texts and phone calls is to monitor their conversations and try to look for keywords, phrases or coded messages in their content. Much else would be pointless - unless indeed it was a good excuse to gather information on innocent people and filter the information for other uses like how to tax us more or find out our personal information for monitoring purposes.

The obvious conclusion would be the first thing the Government would do is to take a look at all people who are Muslim. The theory goes, you see, that not all Muslim are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims - so all you have to do is drill down. That has a minor flaw - recently the Continuity and Real IRA were implicated in a repeat of Sectarian violence in Northern Ireland - so you would have to include Catholics as well.

You see where I am going with this - already there are profound implications about our sensitive data without even trying to think of the wider possibilities.

The Future

I don't think this is about tracking people on Facebook whose profile says their hobby is drug dealing or organising false identities for terrorists - I presume if they were that open they would have an entry in the Yellow Pages. This is about another mechanism and possibly an excuse to pry into people's lives.

Britain leads they way with over 1 camera per 14 people monitoring us - higher than any other European country. So far it has not really helped to reduce crime or stop events such as 7/7 even though the terrorists were clearly seen entering Luton and Kings Cross Stations.

Already we have seen Councils win the right to turn security cameras in city centres to use to track people who park illegally. We use a good proportion of the cameras to catch people speeding rather than find people who steal cars or drive illegally. My point is that once you have carte blanche to access the information, what you do with it has endless opportunities and usually, crime solving, terrorist prevention and personal safety may be the given reason initially but actually are way down the agenda.

On the other hand, crime perpetrated on and via the internet is fast rising. Our identities, personal information, habits and most sensitive data like credit cards and PINs are regularly passed around the web. Identity cloning is becoming too easy and the criminals are far too nerdy to be foxed by security systems and protection provided to companies and individuals on the web. Ebay has been a classic area for crime with spoofs in London alone in 2006 were running at over £1m per week just on car sales.

It is a short hop to believe that terrorists are using the ability to mask their true identity and communicate via the internet to coordinate their efforts - after all we regularly round up people for nights out or birthday parties in pretty much the same way.

Vernon Croaker at the Home Office is not wrong in saying that it is a very sensitive area. It is why individuals should be well appraised of the motives and reasons why such data is needed and more importantly how it will be stored, segmented and used for the future.

The big question will always be - if it starts at the Government and law enforcement having access to the data today, which other agencies will have access to the data tomorrow?

If a Government can pluck a document off the web written by a 21 year old student and use it to persuade us that we need to invade a country then we need to be healthily cynical about what the Government is up to.

Our freedom and privacy is quietly being eroded and while we may think that technology like Google Street View and Facebook is 'Way cool' today, we may actually regret we accepted it with such open arms in the future - if we allow the Government to have its way.