Google Is Invading Privacy Essay Example

had Gmail accounts when the policy was changed. They also knew that consumers would still choose Gmail due to its outstanding features. The executive director of the Association for Competitive Technology knew that “’this was coming’” (Kang), referring to the privacy policy change, as he knew that Google was a huge advertising business.

However, “lawmakers, privacy authorities, technical experts, and privacy organizations around the world” (Sutton) released statements and complaints to Google regarding the change. They did not know how long Google had been retaining data, and for what exactly Google would use and sell the data for. Google’s response to the backlash was that they had “done a better job than rivals in explaining their privacy policies and providing instructions to users who want to leave.”

But this was false, since they were so vague about the changes that it took “a letter from eight Congressional respresentatives” (Sutton) to get clear answers from them. And since Google services are free, users do not have to violate any contracts to stop using the services. The leader of Google’s Data Liberation service, Brian Fitzpatrick, stated, “’Our goal is to make sure users have control of their data’” (Kang). But the policy change seems to contradict this, as it makes users feel out of control with how their data is being manipulated. It forces them to switch or have their privacy violated.

Google Preventing Third-Party Privacy Tools

In 2015, an app maker called Disconnect thought that Google should offer privacy tools on its platform so that consumers have the ability to block advertisers from tracking their activity. Google has removed the app and similar tools from its Google Play Store to

prevent users from being able to access them.

After two attempts of Disconnect being thrown out of the Google Play Store with Google stating that it “violated a terms of service rule by ‘interfering’ with other apps” (Roberts), it was clear that Google did not allow the app because it cut off Google’s ability to track users’ phone behavior. The app maker filed a complaint with the EU regarding the issue and claiming that Google was being anti-competitive. Oppenheim, the app’s creator, stated that “consumers should have a right to block data collection,” and “Disconnect is an open source tools that also protects them from malware” (Roberts).

He believed that dominant companies like Google have the obligation to make helpful products available to users, despite if they hurt their self-interest and were competitive, because “people have a right to protect themselves from non-consensual tracking” (Roberts). Even if Oppenheim succeeded in making third-party privacy apps available for Google users, these apps might not even be of any interest to users who see ad tracking as “an acceptable price for cheap and convenient service” (Roberts). On the other hand, users might support these apps and they could become popular, creating a huge threat to Google’s ability to collect data which is its main source of revenue.

Lack of Email Privacy with Gmail

The director of the CIA, David Petraeous, had his private Google email conversations hacked into in 2012. Google has the potential to have a huge impact on increased email privacy to offer strong email encryption to protect emails from hackers and the government, but they seem to repel privacy as it contradicts their primary goal of data collection. Google

has encryption to protect its users but it is the holder of access to the accounts for data collection, so if Google gets hacked into, it comprises every Gmail account as well.

Google has to make money to keep offering free services to its users in some way, so they collect user data for highly targeted ads. Google also uses a variety of platforms to gather information including “users’ search histories, social or location profiles, and favorite YouTube videos” (Sanchez). Their sheer power over this information is enough to raise concern for users. Government agencies including the FBI and law enforcement are also pining for Google to build backdoors for them so that they can “drastically reduce the security of everyone’s communications in the name of making it a bit easier to spy on a tiny handful of criminals” (Sanchez).

Apps on Google Play Store Illegally Tracking Children

Google has taken unauthorized privacy violation to a new level by allowing apps on their very own Google Play Store to utilize illegal tracking violations, and for children. A new study had researchers look through almost 6,000 apps for children and they found that the apps are illegally collecting information from children under the age of 13 without their parents’ permission, violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The study found that “More than 1,000 children’s apps collected identifying information from kids using tracking software whose terms explicitly forbid their use for children’s apps” (Shaban).

In addition, at least half of the apps do not utilize safety measures to transport the confidential information over the Internet, violating more components of COPPA and subjecting the information to possibly be accessed by

others with more malicious purposes with the data. COPPA-compliant apps were also found to be violations of privacy just as much as the apps that were not. Google claims that they enforce COPPA by “requiring child app developers to certify that they comply with the law” (Shaban), but the study reveals that these efforts are minimal or nonexistent since thousands of apps approved by Google are huge violations of COPPA.

Google’s reaction to the release of the study was, “’We’re taking the researchers’ report very seriously and looking into their findings’” (Shaban), but they should not just be reacting to the findings, they should have found those violations themselves and prevented the apps from being released to their app store that they are in complete control of. Google has profited from the advances in tracking technology, but they have not bothered to address the resulting privacy intrusions. Jeffrey Chester, the executive director for the Center for Digital Democracy, stated that “’Google has basically looked the other way while it was able to generate revenues off of children’s apps’” (Shaban).

Google Tracking When Location History Is Turned Off

According to an AP investigation, even turning off the location history on one’s phone does not stop Google from tracking them. Each time a person opens Google Maps, looks something up, or the checks the weather, the location can still be tracked despite location history being turned off. The Google Support page for location history is false, stating that when you turn off your location history for your Google account, you will no longer be tracked on any of the devices associated with that account.

AP’s investigation proves that turning off your

location history “only stops Google from creating a timeline of your location that you can view” (Dreyfuss). Google can track your location via stamped location data from the apps used on your devices. To prove this, an AP researcher successfully tracked a person utilizing only their app activity and Google web.

Because Google exploits location information to make a profit, they make turning off location tracking via web and app activity extremely difficult to find, as it is buried deep under several menus in one’s Google account settings. It is also already set to default so that Google can track someone for as long as they can before they (might) decide to switch the feature off. Furthermore, Google makes the setting for Web and App Activity seem distinct from Location History. The setting is above the location history option under settings, and Google’s definition of the setting is to “’personalize experiences’” (Dreyfuss). Google also offers three support pages on location, none of which mention anything about web and app activity.

Google’s location tracking is also might be a violation of the FTC consumer protection statues against deceptive privact practices. Alan Butler, senior council at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, holds that “’when you’re creating a historical log of someone’s movements over time, that’s information that’s uniquely sensitive and needs to be handled accordingly’” (Dreyfuss). Google’s withholding of information and lack of specification regarding its hidden tracking features is not handled appropriately and is cause for concern for other privacy issues on Google’s thousands of other platforms as well.

Google Is Violating International Laws

The 2012 release of Google’s new privacy policy had largely negative reactions, especially internationally. Europe, Japan,

and Canda raised concerns that the changes to the policy might violate their domestic privacy laws by releasing statements to Google. Google’s response was to ignore the global distresses, and to write them off as “’chatter and confusion’” (Sutton). The French Data Protection Agency made a statement warning Google that their changes might have violate European Union privacy law.

They also stated that they were “’deeply concerned about the combination of personal data across services’” and that they had “’strong doubts about the lawfulness and fairness of such processing’” (Sutton). The Australian Privacy Foundation took action after the new policy was released to get the Australian consumer protection agency to study the changes and create new laws regarding them, as well as contacting Google about the “”serious public policy concerns’” (Sutton). The Japanese government also sent a statement to Google before the changes, asking that they respect Japanese personal privacy laws and regulations.

Google responded to all of these criticisms with the statement, “’we think these changes will make our services even better’” (Sutton) but the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue disagreed, urging Google that “’Going forward with this plan will be a mistake. We ask you to reconsider’” (Sutton). Google went ahead with their plan, releasing the changes despite other countries’ concerns, and making themselves prone to further global conflicts. In 2016, the EU hit Google with a second antitrust investigation and French regulators demanded Google to comply with their right to be forgotten privacy laws.

This presented a huge conflict for Google, whose business is based on search and which provides links to information all over the Internet, not excluding anything. Due to a court ruling in 2014,

Europeans and people with connections in Europe can request for link removal from Google. Google’s response was to take the search results out from European versions of their search engine, but the French fined Google stating these measures were not enough.

Google users in Europe are automatically redirected to their national version of the search engine, but there were no barriers preventing them from being able to access regular google.com. So Google then began utilizing “’Geo-blocking’ technology to control what European users can see” (Keller and Brown). This method, unfortunately, does not align with Google’s values to make information universally accessible, and it prevents people from the creativity and innovation from a global Internet.

In addition, this control of information helps defend China, Turkey, Iran, and other countries from controlling information their citizens can view on the Internet. Journalists will also be the first affected by these geo-blocking systems, as their global reports might be targeted for privacy and the right to be forgotten concerns of specific countries. It is argued that these national laws on the Internet need “to be handled with more nuance and concern” (Keller and Brown). But Google ultimately controls this information that is so widely available, and it is not right for them to protect certain users’ privacy and exploit others’.