NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Google Settles with FTC over Buzz Complaints (or: Much Ado About Little)
Google Settles with FTC over Buzz Complaints (or: Much Ado About Little)
http://j.mp/ehl4ia (This message on Google Buzz)
- - -
Google has reached a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over
complaints related to their launch of Google Buzz last year.
The main features of this settlement are:
- requiring that Google obtain users' consent before sharing their
information with third parties if Google changes its products or
services in a way that results in information sharing that is
contrary to any privacy promises made when the user's information
was collected
- requires Google to establish and maintain a comprehensive privacy
program
- requires that for the next 20 years, the company have audits
conducted by independent third parties every two years to assess its
privacy and data protection practices
Some observers have also suggested that Google's accidental collection
of data from unencrypted, completely open Wi-Fi networks would have
been considered to be a violation of such a settlement, resulting in
fines of up to $16,000 per violation.
Google's blog posting regarding the settlement is here:
http://j.mp/fPr6QS (Official Google Blog)
The FTC's statement is here:
http://j.mp/fq7S1q (FTC)
My primary blog postings (both from February 2010) related to the Buzz
launch were:
"Google Buzz" -- and the Risks of "Automatic Friends"
http://j.mp/dhbEeQ
and:
The Google Buzz Launch -- and the Limits of Downing Dogfood
http://j.mp/9dhbht
In the first of my postings referenced above, I noted my concerns
about the way default "friends" were assigned in Buzz, but I also
pointed out that sharing itself was not forced on Gmail users, and in
an update a few days later noted that Google had moved very rapidly to
alter those settings in ways that appropriately addressed the
concerns.
In the second posting, I speculated on the possible genesis of the
Google Buzz launch issues, and noted the mass of hate mail I received
for daring to publicly suggest that Google was indeed addressing Buzz
concerns in a reasonable way.
My blogged thoughts on the vastly overblown Google Wi-Fi controversy
are outlined in:
Google's Wi-Fi Crucifixion, an Open Mike, and Public Is As Public Does
http://j.mp/arMkFu
and
"Highly Illogical": The Hysteria Over Google's Wi-Fi Scanning
http://j.mp/9680wb
As for the FTC settlement itself ... Google already spends a great
deal of time and effort on privacy issues, but just as I've long
argued for some sort of more formal Google "Ombudsman" or other more
structured user contact apparatus, e.g. in my Google Ombudsman blog
postings such as: http://j.mp/d0Zp10 -- a more formal privacy
structure (perhaps even combined with an ombudsman-type system of some
sort) will likely be a win-win for both Google and its users in the
long run. There are many other large firms that already have more
structured privacy/ombudsman frameworks, and they have usually served
well.
Independent external privacy audits, and affirmative consent before
changing key privacy provisions are good practices in any case,
especially for substantial enterprises.
Yet I can't help but question the singling out of Google for such
requirements given the relatively minor nature of the transgressions
under discussion, while much more serious "privacy problems" by other
firms have often been dismissed with merely a nod and a wink. Without
casting aspersions on the FTC, it seems clear that much of the loudest
complaining brouhaha regarding the Buzz launch was driven by
traditional anti-Google elements, both obvious and of the hidden,
insidious "astroturf" variety.
Overall, the settlement terms largely represent practices that can be
viewed as good policy, and don't seem unreasonably onerous or
drastically punitive.
However, I hope that in the future the application of such
requirements will be considered appropriate as a matter of course for
at least all large firms that deal with consumer information, and that
relatively minor errors, purposely blown out of proportion by vested
interests, not be the apparent primary impetus for regulatory actions
in these areas.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://j.mp/laurenbuzz
Quora: http://www.quora.com/Lauren-Weinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com