Google’s Website Privacy Principles

Why did Google post its website privacy principles online?

In a time where governments, privacy watch groups, and concerned individuals worry about the capability large internet companies have to store information about their users, Google has posted its website privacy principles online.

Specific concerns have existed concerning Google’s policy of not deleting any of the searches made by users on its websites. Though Google has claimed that data storage is done only to enhance Google’s effectiveness, some worry that Google could abuse that data in the future. By posting a list of website privacy principles, Google has shown to governments, potential investors, and individuals that it intends to abide by all privacy laws, and to act in the most transparent way possible to preserve the privacy interests of all of its users.

What do the website privacy principles say?

Google starts out by claiming that it intends to use data it collects on individuals to provide those individuals with the best experience possible. This could include focusing advertisements to individuals according to what their specific interests and desires are. Google further affirms that website privacy should not concern users as it pledges to adhere to its company policy to ‘not be evil’ and use private information in only appropriate ways.

Google has further claimed that it intends to allow users to, as transparently as possible, view how personal information is used by Google. Google feels that if users simply are able to understand the very mild nature in which information is used, they will not worry as much about Google abusing that information. Google claims this, in part, will be done by the development of the appropriate technologies, which allow Google the best information in the least invasive way possible.

What else does the website privacy information suggest?

A major crux of Google’s privacy principles seems to be Google’s offering to make available several different options for users to customize their own privacy controls. Google feels that such controls will allow users to personally determine how much of their information is stored, and how much of their information remains anonymous. Google claims that its privacy preservation technologies will allow users to make ‘meaningful, fine grain choices’ in regard to how much personal information Google will have access to using.

Perhaps this new move by Google in posting its privacy policy is little more than an attempt to please consumers. Perhaps, however, the move to publish privacy settings serves to please users while still maintaining that Google has some right to control the information its users display on its websites. Regardless, this step by Google will certainly make at least some concerned website privacy advocates at least a small amount more comfortable with companies and their ability to monitor and preserve data over the internet.

Filed Under: Internet Lawyer, Privacy Tagged With: concerned website privacy, copyright-infringement, google8217s website privacy principles, Internet privacy, Privacy, privacy policy, privacy principles, website privacy, website privacy information, website privacy principles

Internet Privacy and Facebook Facial Recognition Software

What does facial recognition software do?

A Carnegie Mellon University researcher recently proved the extent to which a person’s facial features alone can access information about that person.

Assembling a database of around 25,000 pictures acquired by Facebook, this researcher was able to identify individuals walking past him on a university campus with an astounding 31 percent accuracy. In other words, simply by looking at an individual’s facial features, this researcher’s computer program was capable of providing that researcher with the identity, relationship status, and physical address within around three seconds. For some, this technology poses an enormous privacy risk, as program users can know essentially all major details about a person simply by taking a picture of that person, and having a computer analyze that picture in a few seconds.

What are the potential benefits of such technology?

Benefits of the technology have immediately been hailed by various groups. Advertisers, for one, feel that this facial recognition technology could someday lead to more effective advertisements being sent to the individuals most inclined to purchase those goods. Perhaps, they argue, facial recognition technology could serve in a way similar to Google’s Adwords and similar technologies, which allow for the communication between two mutually interested parties.

Law enforcement officials also hail the technology as potentially beneficial for determining the identities for suspected criminals. Rather than relying on names, fingerprints, or other identifying markers, if police were able to use facial recognition software, perhaps they could more effectively complete their job. Prosecutors and other state officials could, perhaps, use technology to prevent wrongful convictions in the future.

What are the potential concerns about facial recognition technology?

Critics of the technology worry that facial recognition software would pose serious privacy concerns if precautions were not taken. They argue that such technology could manifest itself as a stalker’s dream come true. Since information could instantly be accessed about individuals seen at a distance by their mere appearance, stalkers and others could learn detailed information about individuals simply from looking at them from afar, and taking their picture.

Those concerned about the technology also have complained that, in the wrong hands, the technology could be exploited to limit anonymity and the freedom that it guarantees completely. For example, the personal information dating website users often choose not to reveal could be discovered if that user simply posts a single picture of himself/herself online. In the future, perhaps, critics have articulated that businesses, governments, and others could easily gain access to very personal information which could then be used against the individuals posting it.

Filed Under: Internet Lawyer, Privacy Tagged With: enormous privacy risk, facebook facial recognition, facebook privacy, facial recognition, facial recognition software, facial recognition technology, internet attorney, Internet privacy, internet privacy and facebook facial recognition software, internet-lawyer

Are Cartoons Cyberstalking, Internet Defamation, or Free Speech?

Are police cyberstalking victims of a cartoonist?

Internet cartoons equal cyberstalking?

The Renton, WA police department sought to prosecute an internet user who posted an insulting video about the police department under the screen name Mr. Fiddlesticks. The alleged crime? Cyberstalking.

To assist them in their pursuit of the internet user, the Renton police department recently obtained a search warrant that orders Google to turn over the real name and identity of Mr. Fiddlesticks. Officers in the department expect to treat Mr. Fiddlesticks as someone who had illegally committed ‘cyberstalking’ through the posting of information on the internet with the intention of harassing or embarrassing individuals.

Public uproar and ridicule were key factors in the police department backing down on the criminal investigation.

What does the Renton, WA police department believe the cartoons are cyberstalking?

Using an internet video creation website, Mr. Fiddlesticks created videos which depicted the Renton police department in a fairly negative way. For example, Mr. Fiddlesticks implied that members of Renton’s police department committed sex acts while on duty, and that some of the officers received promotions without meeting the necessary prerequisites. In general, the nine videos Mr. Fiddlesticks created generally depicted the Renton police department as a corrupt and incompetent institution.

Officers within the department claim the videos to caused them emotional distress and that Mr. Fiddlesticks should promptly be identified and prosecuted. The officers argue that the videos all constitute ‘cyberstalking’ by their sheer offensive nature which was posted online, they argue, with the intent of doing reputational or emotional damage to the officers. Some officers suspect that the video must have been posted by someone within the department, such as a police officer or some other personnel, given the specific knowledge the videos display about the Renton police department.

Is there a legal justification for prosecuting Internet cartoons as cyberstalking?

Upon hearing about the situation, law professors and legal experts throughout the United States have voiced their opinions about whether or not the Renton police should be able to prosecute Mr. Fiddlestick for his online remarks. Though inarguably provocative enough to have caused the Renton police some embarrassment and hurt feelings, various legal minds have claimed the First Amendment’s protection of free speech prevents Mr. Fiddlestick from suffering any punishment.

In the minds of some of these legal officials, Mr. Fiddlestick did simply what all other comedians do when they speak or present information in a potentially embarrassing way about other individuals for the sake of humor or some other reason. These legal minds contend that if Mr. Fiddlestick faces prosecution, all comedians who poke fun at other individuals or organizations could have their freedom of expression stifled.

Even though criminal prosecution for cyberstalking now seems off the table, the threat of arresting someone for a cartoon has a chilling effect on free speech. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Fiddlestick will be identified and sued in civil court for Internet defamation instead of treated like a criminal for cyberstalking.

Filed Under: CyberCrime, Internet Lawyer, Privacy Tagged With: are cartoons cyberstalking internet defamation or free speech, cyberstalking, first amendment, free-speech, internet cartoons, internet defamation, police department, renton police, renton police department, renton washington