Have You Sold Your Soul to Google?

Initially Google’s search engine appeared to be a welcome alternative to using Microsoft or Yahoo. With the launch of Google Chrome, both Macintosh and PC users could choose a browser other than Internet Explorer or Safari.  And with Google Maps, no longer were travelers forced to use MapPoint or Map Quest.  The best part of Google was that everything was free.

World Domination

Fast forward to present day, Google has achieved “80% of the search market in the United States” (Lyons, 2013) and in “Great Britain and elsewhere in Europe, the figure was closer to 90 percent” (Baker, 2013). Google’s office suite and Google Drive [cloud storage] has emerged as a viable alternative to Microsoft Office and Office 365.  In fact, Google Drive alone has approximately “120 million accounts” (Covert, 2013). 

Google is challenging the way people engage within social spaces as well.  Google Number allows users to establish a telephone number virtually anywhere in the United States and have that number forward to any telephone.  Google Hangouts allow people to connect in cyberspace.  Google’s presence is also felt in the image sharing social media arena with its acquisition of Picasa.

Google owns Blogger, Google+ and the ever-popular YouTube. “About 60% of US Internet users visited YouTube in March of 2013.  Out of that percentage, 22% visited YouTube every day, and nearly 30% visited YouTube a few times per week” (Emarketer, 2013).  Google’s infiltration into the fabric of our existence does not end there; Google created a portal for consumers to shop and pay for transactions with Google Shopping and Google Wallet.  One can barely go a day without using a product by Google.

The Devil is in the Details

If Google is providing viable alternatives to higher priced products offered by giants like Microsoft, what is the harm? Competition is the key to innovation and a free-market economy, right?  Well, yes and no. 

Competition does drive innovation.  In addition, competition for the consumer dollar may lend itself into keeping prices competitive; however, if one company dominates any given market then it becomes more difficult for smaller entities to survive and remain competitive. 

If you are skeptical think of the impact Wal-Mart, Lowe’s and Barnes and Noble have had on smaller chains and sole proprietorships.  Wal-Mart provides groceries and durable goods, as well as pharmacy services, under one roof at discount prices.  What is the harm?  The loss of many mom-and-pop storefronts and the dependence on a major organization that has the power and potential to determine what we will buy and at what price point.  As the way Wal-Mart’s competition goes so does our freedoms.  Lowe’s and Home Depot have similarly impacted the former corner hardware stores by volume pricing them out of existence.  And how many independent booksellers have written their final chapter thanks to Barnes & Noble?  Yes, competition is good but domination is not.

If we permit one company to be everything to everyone or have a disproportionate market share, no matter how good or how affordable or how convenient their offerings may be, we run the risk of undermining the economy and surrendering our freedom and the freedom to choose that we, as Americans, prize.

Dramatic? Perhaps but very real.  Google not only dominates how we connect with information and each other it also has the potential to determine what types of products are returned when we search.  Google was the subject of an FTC investigation regarding it search engine practices.  Google was suspected of favoring “its own products and services” (Baker, 2013).  FairSearch.org asserts that Google’s practices exclude, “competitors from the search marketplace — particularly in high-traffic specialty segments, like travel, jobs, health, real estate, media and local search” (Gustin, 2012).

Google is not done yet.  Through its ever-changing algorithms, Google has the power to exclude news agencies from searches via its search engine.  This speaks of the attempt to undermine freedom of the press and free speech.  In a similar manner that major conglomerate news agencies and print publications control what they publish, Google can determine what they will return.  This should be a major wakeup call to those who have abandoned mainstream news channels in favor of alternative publications and global news sources.  Not only should this concern everyone in terms of what they have access to but also consider that “dropping below the front pages of Google’s search results means lost advertising dollars” for news outlets which can lead to more independent voices “disappearing from public view” (Baker, 2013).

“Google’s near monopoly in the online marketplace is becoming an unchallenged monopoly in the marketplace of ideas” (Baker, 2013).  As many news agencies eliminate circulations in favor of going digital, it would be very easy for Google to decide what is in our best interests to know whether it be local or international news.

A Farewell to Privacy

Google has access to an ever-growing database of information gained from tracking its users.  Keywords from searches are used in Google Analytics.  This helps marketers know what search terms users enter, what sites users visit, if users make a purchase from a visit, how much they spend, what they buy, how often they visit.  Google knows when you are online, what you watch, who your friends are, where you live and so much more.  Knowledge is power and Google has it. 

Google’s improved functionality is disputed to be a major setback in terms of privacy.  Announced via a Gmail blog, Google+ users can e-mail “just about anyone with a Google+ account” and give others “the ability to e-mail you” (Culley, 2014).  Google will begin to auto suggest names of Google+ users in a similar manner as its search engine auto-fills as  search terms/phrases are entered.  Jeff Roberts, tech blogger for GigaOm claims that this feature is “a stalking tool” (Culley, 2014).

While Google allows for users to limit their contact to those within their own circle or no one, the default option is more permissive and allows anyone to contact you.  Google has created the ability for people to protect themselves but many individuals may not be as savvy or even know that they have a Google+ account.  Why not apply the feature in a more restrictive manner to protect users from unwanted contact?

In 2012, Google was criticized for tracking mobile and Macintosh users by “sidestepping privacy safeguards on Apple’s Safari web browser” (Bosker, 2012).  Through the use of special code, Google code tricked Safari, a browser designed to block such traffic by default”, “into letting them [Google] monitor many users” activities.   Google subsequently disabled the code after inquiry by the Wall Street Journal (Angwin & Valentino-Devries, 2012).

Data Security

Considering the amount of data that Google collects about its users, security should also be a concern.  Google has challenged hackers to hack its Chrome browser.  As part of an effort to identify any browser vulnerabilities, Google is paying hackers between $110K and $150K USD to hack their browser.  Google will be verifying submissions from hackers and awarding payouts to the sum of over $2.7MM at Vancouver’s CanSecWest security conference later this year (Rodriguez, 2014).

The Devil You Know

“Don’t Be Evil” is Google’s motto (Google, 2014).  Google asserts that is designed to provide “users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can” and by “following the law” (Google, 2014).  At face value that seems admirable; however, Google’s actions in stealth data collection, questionable search practices and restrictive privacy polices indicate that they may be loosely interpreting the meaning of evil.

Perhaps it goes back to an age-old adage, “There is no such thing as a free lunch”.  There is a cost associated with everything.  Are consumers so dependent on Google, or any company for that matter, that they are willing to give free access to their data?  Does it really provide more value to the consumer to have ads that are relevant directed to them based upon their browsing and prior purchase behavior?  Is agreeing to Google’s demands that you lay down your privacy on their doorstep or quit using their products ethical or extortion? 

In the world today when selfie photos and drunken Facebook posts and embarrassing Tweets seem commonplace does the consumer have a reasonable expectation of online privacy?  If so, at what price?  It is up to each individual to decide.  Take the time to research and to make an informed decision; after all, it is your data and your privacy at stake.

References

Angwin, J., & Valentino-Devries, J. (2012, February 17). Google Tracked iPhones, Bypassing Apple Browser Privacy Settings - WSJ.com. Retrieved February 14, 2014, from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204880404577225380456599176?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052970204880404577225380456599176.html

Baker, W. (2013, January 23). Google's Monopoly on the News | The

Nation. Retrieved February 15, 2014, from

http://www.thenation.com/article/172378/googles-monopoly-news#

Bosker, B. (2012, February 24). Google Privacy Missteps A Boon For Rivals. Retrieved February 14, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/google-privacy-policy-private-data_n_1297672.html

Covert, S. (2013, November 13). Teenage Hacker Scores $60,000 From Google For

Discovering Security Issue In Chrome (Again) | TechCrunch. Retrieved February 14, 2014,

from http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/10/teenage-hacker-scores-60000-from-google-for

discovering-security-issue-in-chrome-again/

Culley, V. (2014, January 10). New Google feature prompts security concerns | FOX2now.com. Retrieved February 14, 2014, from http://fox2now.com/2014/01/10/new-google-feature-prompts-security-concerns/

Emarketer (2013, April 5). Just How Popular Is YouTube? - eMarketer.

Retrieved February 14, 2014, from http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Just-How-Popular

YouTube/1009787

Google (2014). Code of Conduct – Investor Relations – Google. Retrieved February 14, 2014, from https://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html

Google (2014). Google - Products. Retrieved February 14, 2014,

from http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/products/

Gustin, S. (2012, October 15). Search-Engine Monopoly? FTC Could Sue Google on Antitrust Grounds | TIME.com. Retrieved February 14, 2014, from http://business.time.com/2012/10/15/ftc-antitrust-probe-against-google-sets-up-internet-regulation-clash/

Lyons, D. (2013, October 3). SEO Guru: Google Is Abusing Its Monopoly Power. Retrieved February 14, 2014, from http://blog.hubspot.com/opinion/seo-guru-google-is-abusing-its-monopoly-power

Rodrieguez, S. (2014, January 24). Google offering hackers nearly $3 million to exploit Chrome OS - latimes.com. Retrieved February 14, 2014, from http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-google-hackers-3-million-exploit-chrome-os-20140124,0,1648023.story#axzz2tdtrwCGN