EPIC Takes Buzz Privacy Battle to FTC

Privacy advocates are on the warpath against Google Buzz, the new social networking tool that has riled Gmail users. Ironically, it's in part because of the very social technologies Google and others provide that users are now as vocal as they are, noted privacy lawyer Parry Aftab. In the end, she quipped, such companies "may find that they've created a monster."

Just a week after the launch of Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) Buzz, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) on Tuesday filed a complaint with the FTC charging that the new service violates federal consumer protection law.

"This is a significant breach of consumers' expectations of privacy," said Marc Rotenberg, the group's executive director. "Google should not be allowed to push users' personal information into a social network they never requested."

In its complaint, EPIC urges the trade commission to require that Google make the Buzz service fully opt-in. It also asks that Google stop using Gmail users' private address book contacts to compile social networking lists, and that it give its users "meaningful control" over their personal data.

Two Rounds of Changes

Buzz is Google's first step onto social networking ground. It facilitates the instantaneous sharing of information like status updates, links and videos among Gmail users. For that reason, it is widely viewed as an attempt to take on the likes of Facebook and Twitter.

The service began to encounter resistance almost as soon as it was released, as criticisms emerged of Buzz's effect on privacy. Such was the outcry, in fact, that Google has already tweaked the Buzz service twice in the days since its release.

Last Thursday, the first round of changes gave Gmail users a "more visible option" to hide the people they follow on their public profile, for example, as well as the ability to block anyone who starts following them.

The second set of tweaks, announced Saturday, refined things further, including making the process of following people more explicit.

'Unfair and Deceptive'

For EPIC, however, those changes apparently weren't enough.

"Google Buzz still allows people to automatically follow a user; the burden remains on the user to block those unwanted followers," the group argues in its complaint.

EPIC further notes that Buzz's welcome screen "does not make clear that the user must create a profile that would be public and indexed by search engines." In addition, "users are still unaware that showing the user's connection means showing connections publicly to everyone, and having them publicly indexed by search engines."

Overall, "Google is engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and practices," EPIC concludes, requesting that the FTC conduct an investigation into the service.


A Problem of Communication?

"We designed Buzz to make it easy for users to connect with other people and have conversations about the things that interest them," Google said in a statement. "Buzz was launched only a week ago. We've already made a few changes based on user feedback, and we have more improvements in the works. We look forward to hearing more suggestions and will continue to improve the Buzz experience with user transparency and control top of mind.

"We also welcome dialogue with EPIC and appreciate hearing directly from them about their concerns," Google added. "Our door is always open to organizations with suggestions about our products and services."

CEO Eric Schmidt, meanwhile, suggested in remarks at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona on Tuesday that it was simply a problem of communication, but that no personal information was in fact disclosed, according to a report in The Guardian.



'It Should Be a Free-Standing Service'

Privacy groups, however, aren't so sure.

"We recommend that all current Buzz users immediately turn off the public list, and review their friend list before making it public again," wrote Electronic Frontier Foundation Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl on Tuesday, for example.

"We are somewhat troubled by the manner in which Google implemented Buzz," Paul Stephens, director of policy advocacy with the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, told the E-Commerce Times. "I don't think the process that a user normally goes through would necessarily make it clear to them that they were revealing information such as their email contacts."

Google needs to "take another look" at Buzz, Stephens said.

In particular, "it should be a free-standing service," he suggested. "It's presumptuous to assume, based on the mere fact that someone happens to have Google email account, that they'll want to participate in Google Buzz."



'Lots of Miscommunication'

If nothing else, the complaint underscores the care with which such new technologies must be introduced, Parry Aftab, a privacy lawyer and executive director of WiredSafety, told the E-Commerce Times.

"We've seen in recent years lots of miscommunication, involving Facebook, Google and lots of others, when they add or change services," Aftab explained.

As a result, "we see lots of knee-jerk reactions from people who assume they are at risk," she noted. "It shows how concerned people are about their personal information and keeping control of it."

'Engage Users Earlier'

In the case of Buzz, "the biggest problem has been Google's failure to recognize how carefully these new technologies need to be communicated to the public," Aftab concluded.

In such cases, companies need to "engage users earlier, let them know exactly what you're doing, and make sure you do exactly what you tell them," she advised.

Ironically, it's in part because of the very social technologies Google and others provide that users are now as vocal as they are, Aftab pointed out. In the end, she quipped, such companies "may find that they've created a monster.


Source:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/69364.html

Professional Web Design Chicago

Oh Google, why do you do us wrong?

Nexus One support screwups, the Google Buzz fiasco, killing music blogs -- it seems like Google can't do anything right any more

So far, 2010 is shaping up to be the year Google discovered it had feet of clay -- and those feet have been spending a lot of time in Google's mouth.

(Also: This blog is shaping up to be all about Google, Apple, and Microsoft. Maybe we should rename it Notes from the GoogAppSoft -- or not.)

First, there was Google's disastrous foray into direct-to-consumer sales with the Nexus One phone, in which Google learned that, yes, you actually have to talk to customers when they're ticked off; they're not willing to wait until somebody gets around to responding on an online forum. Though Google has gotten slightly better at dealing with complaints over problems with 3G connections and phone delivery, it still hasn't figured out what "customer service" actually means.

Then, Google Buzz: a nice idea, if you spend all your time on the Googleplex and have no life and no secrets. Otherwise, it's just a bit too friendly with the information of relative strangers. Google has revised its Buzz product at least three times since it was introduced last week, trying to quell the privacy storm that followed; it still has a ways to go on that one, too.

On top of those comes a so-far little-reported incident that's been tagged Musicblogocide 2010. Earlier this month Google deleted years' worth of archives from six popular music blogs hosted on Blogger.com -- just wiped them from the face of the InterWebs. The reason? It had received multiple DMCA takedown notices from record companies alleging these sites were sharing music illegally.

Under the DMCA (otherwise known as Congress's boundless gift to copyright holders), a service provider like Google can escape liability for violations only if it acts immediately to remove any offending sites or files. The copyright holder doesn't have to prove the violations are genuine, and the service provider doesn't even have to notify the sites beforehand -- it can wipe first and notify later.

The problem? Some of the sites claim they had permission to share those music files. Worse, others say Google didn't ever notify them -- or if they were notified, the information was so vague that it was impossible to find out where the alleged violations occurred.

The only recourse for a site that's been hit with a DMCA takedown is to file a counternotification -- essentially a claim of innocence -- which Google then must forward to the copyright holders. If the copyright holders don't take legal action against the alleged infringers within two weeks, their sites must be restored.

That's kinda hard to do if 1) you've never been notified, or 2) you have no idea what you allegedly did wrong. In one case, Google has admitted its notifications were insufficient and restored the site. As for the others, it's sticking by its policies and saying the bloggers should have filed counterclaims.

Meanwhile, Bill Lipold, owner of the I Rock Cleveland blog, has been publicly haranguing Google and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (essentially an international version of the RIAA) on Google's own public support forums. He's reproduced emails from record companies stating he had the right to publicly distribute their music. On his new, non-Google-hosted blog, he points out that at least one of the files in question had been removed from his site more than two years previous, which would have been easy enough to check:

If at this point you're drawing the conclusion that neither the IFPI nor Google know exactly what they're doing in these matters, you're not alone. If at any point during the DMCA claim process a human being had clicked on the link and looked for the infringing content they wouldn't have found an mp3, but a 404 with the message, "Sorry, dude. The rockin' has stopped. Please be aware that downloads from I Rock Cleveland are only available for a limited time. You can find more Rock 'N' Roll at I Rock Cleveland."

Google isn't to blame for the DMCA, one of the most spectacularly abused pieces of digital legislation ever created. But it does seem to be getting more aggressive about DMCA enforcement.

Like I Rock Cleveland, most of those other sites have found new homes (so much for the effectiveness of DMCA takedowns). But Google is taking most of the heat for this, and a big part of that is because of how it reacted. It all stems from Google's attitude of "we'll respond if and when we feel like it, and only indirectly via our blog or online forum." It's another symptom of Google's self-centeredness -- the same thing that caused its failure to provide actual customer support for the Nexus One, as well as the entire Google Buzz fiasco.

The G-folk can't seem to see beyond the boundaries of the Googleplex. As Google becomes less of an Internet company and more of a consumer goods company, that myopia is only likely to get worse.

Does Google deserve the beating it's been getting (here and elsewhere)? Weigh in below or email me: cringe@infoworld.com.

This article, "Oh Google, why do you do us wrong?" was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Read more of Robert X. Cringely's Notes from the Field blog.

Source:

http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/oh-google-why-do-you-do-us-wrong-012?page=0,0

Chicago Website Design