If you think I'm overstating Google's intrusions or misrepresenting Google's motives, think again about the revenue model. Virtually all of Google's income is from targeted advertising. Every major company expenditure, therefore (think YouTube), almost certainly has to feed the beast. In the consulting work I've done from time to time, I've more than once had the breathtaking experience of sitting in on high-level planning sessions. Revenue concerns come first. Top executives don't sit around saying, "Golly, what's the next cool product we can develop." Instead, in Google-land, the conversation is probably more like: "We now know A, B, and C about people. How can we find out about D?" A question like that would prompt answers such as: "Simple – let's buy YouTube" or "No problem – let's develop a browser" or "Let's call in the product people and see what they've got that can help us."
In other words – silly you – you gave Google permission to track you simply by engaging in activities that allowed it to track you.
In other words, piss us off and we can release a dossier about you as thick as a phone book (figuratively speaking). Could such a contract be valid – one that is all at once so invisible to users and so maddeningly all-encompassing or even threatening? This is for judges and regulators to decide in coming years.
In the mean time, I guess Google's ... well, you know.
- Read the U.S. News Debate: Should Probable Cause Be Required for Police to Use Cell Phone Location Data?
- Read Anson Kaye: Constitutional Hypocrisy on Gun Control and the 4th Amendment
- Check out U.S. News Weekly, now available on iPad