What Could Google Do With the Data It's Collected?
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
If Google ran the War on Terror, they would dissolve 99.9% of plots before they begin. The falsely accused would have to sit in prison, since they couldn't get anyone on the phone even if they wanted to. That's fine though, because they would get free food and Internet in their Google jail cell, and hear talks by other famous inmates.
What will it take before the general public understands kind of dangers involved? Or are privacy concerns largely theoretical musings by geeks, which simply aren't as important as we imagine them to be?
There was a similar shift in privacy when banking went electronic and we all got credit cards. Now businesses have vast repositories of extremely detailed purchasing information, and we all accept this surrender of privacy without question.
What's the difference? What has been the impact of the loss of privacy via e-banking?
Maybe the only limit to the possible dangers is human imagination?
They just are not scared of the internet that's all and do not consider fantastic possibilities, but probabilities.
Google has become too big and even powerful, so it is only right that every step, even contemplation of taking a step, is scrutinised closely. That so is being done tells you that many, if not the majority, do understand the importance of privacy.
I've seen this quoted before. If it's accurate it's pretty damn weak, in fact totally unbelievable. There's absolutely no way this data could have been collected unless deliberately.
They are collecting gigabytes of data, so those additional packets wouldn’t exactly be obvious. And they probably just copied the HDDs those cars have wholesale, without any prior processing of the data.
So, maybe something like:
1) Capture incoming packet
2) Store its MAC address
3) Discard packet data
4) Repeat
There are various ways they could frame this to retain their image...one would be to announce a campaign to crack down on the use of gmail for lawbreaking. Then sweep email for selective incidents involving politicians (and reporters!) threatening Google with regulation, and report to the authorities.
They already do this with child pron, so this would just be moving the bar back towards things that 99% (as opposed to 99.999...%) of society opposed. Escorts are probably a good place to start if you wanted to take down politicians.
It's true that politicians should be subject to more scrutiny than the rest of us, but that doesn't mean that they should have no privacy. Do you trust Google to make that decision about politicians? Once politicians are afraid of the power that Google wields, do you trust them to protect you from Google?
What can't be done when a single company in the world has, with a multitude of "free" services, crawled into every crevice of your private life? They know who you e-mail and what you mail about. They know your calendar and schedules. They know your economy. They know your medical history. They know who your friends are and what you do on your vacation. They know your hobbies and interests. Traverse the list of Google products and you'll quickly see that every single aspect of your life can now have a Google tag on it.
I'm honestly at a loss, when I try to think of solutions. The most sensible reaction might be to break Google up into smaller companies - which would mean that the benefit it gains from being interconnected would be reduced - but I don't think this would currently be possible.
Haha, no, not in this day and age. People in power these days know you have to keep the public sated to prevent revolution. People with family and jobs who live in relative safety and have a reasonable amount of income aren't going to revolt. And the public shouldn't initiate a revolution anyways because the cost becomes too great with a society this size.
The answer is deceptively simple. Develop a theory of change (work backwards from your end goal to discover the steps that need to be taken) and devise a strategy that takes into account the dynamics of power. The problem is that this is very difficult. You have to be very disciplined, you have to abandon your personal life goals, you have to find people to help you, and you will almost certainly have to do something out of line with your ideals (such as manipulating people or temporarily acting like the people you are trying to be rid of).
I think developing a theory of change is useful, but then again - wouldn't it involve creating an instrument of power to control the masses? Rather than moderating the power networks we have, the public would be pushed from pillar to post.
I think it would be more useful to society in general, if we were able to define limits to the amount of power a single entry has.