NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Google Is Hiring Bond Traders [plus Google and the City of L.A.]
I have to admit that I'm a bit mystified about this thread. The original message that started this discussion over on Dave Farber's IP list was: Google Is Hiring Bond Traders http://bit.ly/9sI3jX (IP) which quoted the full Bond Trader job description at: http://bit.ly/as1LjH (Silicon Alley Insider) Somehow the discussion was flumed into utterly irrelevant comments about what Google does or does not do with user information. No matter how hard I try, I can't think of any possible nexus between these two topics other than the fact that Google makes money from ads and ad personalization relates to user behavior -- but we already knew that. So unless someone is somehow suggesting that Google Bond Traders will be directly exploiting Google user data in the course of their trading duties (rather, uh, unlikely I'd say) the negative reaction doesn't make much sense. And given the sorts of dollar amounts involved, the fact that Google wants to handle their funds professionally in the bond market makes complete sense. Next topic -- somehow the fact that the City of L.A. (where I've resided my entire life) has chosen to use Google Apps for some important functions got dragged into this discussion as well. Being born and bred in La La Land, I've followed the L.A./Google situation with considerable interest. To understand the dynamic, it's important to realize that the City is virtually bankrupt (I know, you wouldn't guess that from the luxurious trappings of city officials). The city infrastructure is in bad shape, and that most definitely includes its IT infrastructure. Trying to look at these situations simplistically or in isolation can very easily lead to erroneous conclusions. It's a major error to try judge "cloud" services on a standalone basis without considering the alternative without them (which in many cases, like here in L.A., means ancient hardware and software, bugs galore, horrible performance, constant breakdowns, break-ins, hacking, lost data, lack of backups, bad security, Microsoft Office, and all the rest). And of course there's a lack of money to pay for really qualified in-house expertise -- and why would anyone who really knew what they were doing put up with such a situation overall? There was really no way for L.A. IT to get back on track without significant outsourcing, and after a number of iterations the city and Google came up with a pretty decent plan -- especially in comparison with the Microsoft-promoted alternative. So while there are definitely security and privacy issues to be considered with any cloud computing environment, in the case of L.A. at least those same issues in the context of the rotting local L.A. IT infrastructure -- combined with a range of other serious IT deficiencies and lack of funds here in the City -- made the Google plan very attractive vs. any other proposals that were on the table. Knee-jerk negative reactions against Google rarely make sense, and they especially don't make sense when you're unaware of the backstory involved. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren@vortex.com Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein - - - On 03/23 18:37, Bob Frankston wrote: > There is something familiar here. Even as we may see Google as the epitome > of openness they are also in a privileged position. It reminds me of Carl > Malamud's efforts to unlock our legal knowledge from Westlaw and others who > have taken control as stewards of portions of our commons. It's a neat deal > - the government gets "free" services in return for letting Westlaw monetize > it. > > > > Adam is right - Google's benign neglect is just an illusion. Yet we don't > expect to see a banner ad saying "The Morning After Pill - you forgot > something last night". We sense there are boundaries and don't want to know > there aren't. > > > > If Los Angeles uses Google apps and maps for basic services I do not have a > choice in whether Google gets to use my information. Or more to the point, > our information. > > > > We can consider it a form of insider information - Google gets to see public > information in a way that others don't. It is taking exclusive ownership of > a commons. It's like donating land so the city has a park in return for > being the sole concessionaire. > > > > Of course Google is not alone. We've seen another form of this in people > using their company's inside information to trade its competitors' stocks. > > > > And let's not forget that privateer model we use to hand exclusive control > of speech to NaaS (Networking as a Service - AKA, Telecom) companies. > > > > At least in the case of NaaS I can say "don't do that". I don't have a > simple answer for Google's control. And they are far from alone. Think of > how the drug companies track the prescriptions physicians write. > > > > > > From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 17:50 > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Re: Google Is Hiring Bond Traders > > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Adam Fields <ip20398470293845@aquick.org> > Date: March 23, 2010 3:31:47 PM EDT > To: David Farber <dave@farber.net> > Cc: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> > Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Google Is Hiring Bond Traders > > Fir IP, if you wish: > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:40:36AM -0400, David Farber wrote: > > > > Me roo. > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: "Bob Frankston" <bob2-39@bobf.frankston.com> > > Date: March 22, 2010 4:50:08 PM EDT > > To: <dave@farber.net>, "'ip'" <ip@v2.listbox.com> > > Subject: RE: [IP] Google Is Hiring Bond Traders > > > > So what?s what they are doing with all the stuff they know about me? > > > > I?d feel far better if this were arms-length. > > > Really? What possible reason would they have to do that? Come on, > folks. If this is a surprise to anyone, you simply haven't been paying > attention. > > You voluntarily gave Google all of your information for the explicit > purpose of helping them make money so you could collect the free > computing crumbs they dropped on the floor while doing so. > > Did you really have any illusions that this was a different > relationship? As far as I can tell, nowhere in the Google Terms of > Service or Privacy Policy is anything prohibiting Google from making > use of the information shared with them for the gain of Google as long > as it doesn't violate their prohibition against sharing personally > identifiable information with third parties. > > -- > - Adam > ---------- > If you liked this email, you might also like: > "You're not looking at the iPad the right way" > -- http://workstuff.tumblr.com/post/459204324 > "Cooking at home is different" > -- http://www.aquick.org/blog/2009/10/15/cooking-at-home-is-different/ > "Bloom" > -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/fields/4449638140/ > "fields: @jayrosen_nyu Apropos to gradual intro to the digital ecosystem: > http..." > -- http://twitter.com/fields/statuses/10928453700 > ---------- > ** I design intricate-yet-elegant processes for user and machine problems. > ** Custom development project broken? Contact me, I can help. > ** Some of what I do: > http://workstuff.tumblr.com/post/70505118/aboutworkstuff > > [ http://www.adamfields.com/resume.html ].. Experience > [ http://www.morningside-analytics.com ] .. Latest Venture > [ http://www.confabb.com ] ................ Founder > > > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> Archives > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/> > > <http://www.listbox.com> > > >