Considerations

I am writing a report on my evaluation of blogging platforms, and I used the word "considerations". Wanting to be quite sure of what the word means, I looked it up in Google. For the first time, I noticed the odd inclusion of a definition at the top of the research results, a definition not documented, and not linked to any Web page. In other words, it was content inserted by Google into the search results page. As such, it was unexpected, and being undocumented, it became suspicious. Investigating further, I noticed the link called "More info". Following that link led me to a page of wonders - 6 definitions (from unspecified source), 5 more definitions under the header "Web sources", but again with no documentation of where they come from, and finally 20 examples of usage, with Web links to the source page. At the bottom of the page, hardly noticeable without close inspection, was this: "The usage examples, images and web definitions on this page were selected automatically by a computer program. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Google Inc. or its employees."

Well, it looks as if Google is off on another tangent. They have been an incredibly innovative company, providing product after service after service after product, for "free", that are just downright useful. But now they are beginning to skirt the edge of acceptability more and more. In this case, they have changed the apparent PURPOSE of the search engine, with no explanation or apparent fore-warning to their customers. They have used it to showcase THEIR product in with their algorithms. 

They have already done this before, with "sponsored" searches, and even more insidiously, by "privatizing" and "commercializing" their search engine. For instance, because I am using the Blogger software to write this blog posting,every search I do is tracked and recorded by Google - they have sent me to an "https" site, and they have added miles of tracking code to my search terms. Like this: "https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Tsa&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=consideration&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=0W1ST_qPOqev0AHSsPzeDQ&ved=0CDIQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1280&bih=537&ech=1&psi=0W1ST_qPOqev0AHSsPzeDQ.1330805578586.3&emsg=NCSR&noj=1&ei=0W1ST_qPOqev0AHSsPzeDQ". They have tricked us. 

Google's recent consolidation of 60+ privacy policies into 1, and the subsequent "sharing" of all the information ANY of these once-private-companies contained, was just the final nail on the coffin. They have been entombing us for years, and we were too eager to use their "free" products to question their motives. They have become an insidious company, no longer trust-worthy. And now we are each left on our own, to try to work our way out of this worm-hole.  

Well, there are some things you can do. To "clean up your act", follow these suggestions from the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/google-privacy-policy-changes_n_1310506.html

And then there's the arrogance of thumbing of their noses at the European Union's Justice Commission! See this quote from the IT Security and Network Security News on eWeek.com:

EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding said Google's product policy privacy changes violated European data protection laws by failing to gain consumer consent.

The Financial Times ran a terrific editorial on Friday, 3/2/12, called "Privacy Property", in which they end with this quote:

The principle must be that data are the private property of the users they are obtained from, which they may share or sell but only in free informed transactions. A free
market is a good model for the internet – and markets only do their job if property rights are well-defined.

 The editors also maintain that "The Commission should move ahead on revised and harmonised privacy legislation with a robust right to be forgotten." Amen.