Introduction
In cyberspace, communication and information technologies allow consumers to look for, compare and buy products and services from anywhere around the world. They can also obtain information and knowledge in a quicker, easier and virtual ways. At the same time, technologies also enable sellers and companies to gather, store, transfer and analyze hundreds of data about the people who turn to their websites.
Everything that consumers do online can be tracked and traced by interested parties. The quantity or volume of data about consumers depends on what the interested parties may want. This constitutes an infringement of the consumers’ privacy and sadly, the cyberspace laws and regulations do not provide ample protection and support for these violated consumers.
Websites, specifically commercial ones, regularly derive all sorts of information about their customers through several surveys, registration forms, contests, profiles, etc. They also get other information from customers through personal data. The level of awareness of customers is contained by the companies through their acknowledgment of the customers’ privacy by way of notices, explanations, advisory, etc.
This paper shall explore the various motivations by companies and actors do this kind of invasion of privacy in cyberspace. We shall look upon the case of Google and how and why this global online company infringes the privacy of their users or visitors. This paper shall also present several guidelines and recommendations by which consumers can protect their privacy in cyberspace.
But whatever concerns consumers may have, and whatever marketers’ answers are, online commerce continues to grow rapidly and the possibility of abuses with it. On the other hand, only 3% of consumers read privacy policies most of the time and 66% spend little or any time looking at them.
Thus the first step in privacy issues in the cyberspace might be to inform in a better way and to educate consumers about privacy practices; and then to develop simplified and standardized notices.
Privacy Issue Related to a Cyber Business Scenario: Google’s Invasion of Privacy
Information and communications technologies both sustain and endanger three major privacy respects: 1.) freedom from being intruded; 2.) personal information control, and 3.) freedom from being watched. (Baase, 2007) There are various levels of the privacy problems in cyberspace. These are all said to be highly contextual. (Ibid.) While some regulations and promulgations apply the ethical standards, some others do not comply. They are under the historical settings (the way things are usually done), materialism and other non-ethical elements. We also cannot uphold complete privacy because the Internet technologies were not created to be one hundred percent security proof.
According to Moore (2008), a Google account enables the company to record and use personal information about the users. The most controversial items about the company’s alleged infringement of personal privacy are its Gmail, an email service, Google Buzz, Google Plus, among others.
G-mail, which is a widely used email service in cyberspace, is used by other Google features like Google Buzz. (Wood, 2010) Google Buzz is a social network and a sharing service of Google. It is based on Google Profiles. It offers various status updates, photos, links, and videos from a user’s immediate ocntacts, frineds and fmailies, most especially. Updates from other online services such as Flickr, Google Reader, Picasa, or Twitter can also be instantly imported into the Google Buzz stream. It also recommends items which users might like based on the user’s friends’ online activities. (Google Website, 2012)
In personal email communications, a sort of privacy is expected between the sender of the email and its receiver. (“About Gmail,” 2012) Privacy is infringed when the personal email content is shared with parties other than the sender and intended recipients without their knowledge or consent. However, Google added a feature in which advertisement are keyed to words in one’s email. (What’s Google’s Biggest Strategic Issue? 2010)
When a user visits Google Buzz, he is invited to "Try Buzz in Gmail." This feature, in a way, harvests the personal contact lists of one’s networks. (Wood, 2010) Anytime any of the user’s links does an @ reply to him, Google Buzz will broadcast the user’s e-mail address to the whole cyberspace. (Wood, 2010) This feature can derive the user’s photos and put it in the user’s Personal Buzz Page. It also displays buzzes from people near the user’s geographic location and determine their identities and addresses. (Ibid.)
In essence, the use of the search engine or any of its services enables the company to track and/or monitor a user’s online activities. The information becomes a profile which Google uses to build a user’s comprehensive personal and professional profile. The system of combining internet protocol address and cookies allows Google to vividly screen a user’s activity. Hence, a Google user is not secured as he can be tracked in his home or work by any interested party who wants to track him. (Brown. 2007)
In a real scenario, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleged Google of its application of deceptive strategies and violations of its individual privacy pledges to its online users when it introduced the “Google Buzz” in 2010. (PR Newsiwre, 2011) FTC alleged Google’s practices and considered is a direct violation of the FTC Act. Google is then called to make a full privacy program, independent and routine privacy audits for twenty years, among others. (Ibid.)
The FTC ruled that by not properly informing its users of the privacy issues around its Google Buzz, Google has violated the said act. Specifically, Google did not adequately told its Gmail users that they had the preference of leaving the social network. The Federal Trade Commission also alleged that Google’s controls for the proliferation of personal information reduction were confusing and hard to find. The FTC also cited the thousands of email complains about the Google Buzz.
Analysis: Motivation of the Actors
Google is just like any other search engine which tracks the activities of users for various intentions. The primary reason why Google is doing this is because of marketing and monetary purposes. This is the main feature of their ad targeting. It derives almost more than 90% of its income from ads. (Google Website, 2012) Indeed, Google has a history of selling highly relevant advertising. Google operationalized relevance in terms of the attention people or users give to these ads. Google’s strategy is to widen this type of relevancy beyond basic search. (Shontell, 2011) That is why it keeps on tracking more and more consumers as they are potential buyers for their advertisers. Google personalized its search engine in order to make paid ads’attractiveness the same level of banner ads’ attractiveness. It also initiated geo-targeting feature to track where users are or what the users buy online. By integrating everything under their Google Account, the company is also able to know what customers say about their products even when it is by private individuals. (Ibid.)
As users click on the ads which are entangled in their emails or the websites they are perusing, Google is paid by the advertisers. By tracking everything about their users, the company’s profits and website traffic increase by more than 20% monthly since it has operated in 1998. (Ibid.)
It is evident that the search engine’s business model revolves around their advertising. Thus, by tracking all the users or potential consumers, they make their marketing more targeted. Ultimately, Google maintains their high levels of income from such advertisers. On the side of the advertisers, having a comprehensive profile of Google’s users puts them at a vantage point.
Aside from economic reason, Google also tracks consumers because they also want to extend their service to their users. One reason to keep coming back to their search engine is to be satisfied with the information Google collect about users’ search histories. This is utilized in their non-paid search results. (Lagorio, 2011) If Google knows a user’s specific interests (i.e. sports, travel or leisure activties), it can alter special search engines based on these personal preferences.
According to Brown (2007), Google performs dumb searches across users’ search engine's histories. Dumb searches means typing a certain keyword that would generate specific set of result, independent of the users. (Ibid.) By being keen on the suers’ past activities and purchases, it can comprehensively integrate these information to present a maximum ad performance (with respect to advertisers) and optimum search engine experience (in terms of the Internet users).
Methods and Provisions Discouraging Infringement of Personal Privacy
As privacy infringement problems in the Internet seem remote and impersonal, certain codes of ethical practice must be enforced. (DeLorme, Zinkhan, & French, 2001) This code of ethics lays the foundation for more legal and moral sanctions for abusers. Such a code, with all its pertinent penalties, will address users in a proper manner. Of these, privacy, in its broadest sense, can be protected. It will also distinctively determine if the action is plainly information sharing with all its content’s integrity, security and availability or non availability intact. Authorization in information technology can also be addressed with the said code. (Brooks, 2010)
There are many controversies in implementing these “rights” and “duties” in real world applications. However, this ethical code is still very relevant and functional in providing some practical guidelines for the community of users in cyberspace. (Brooks, 2010) Undeniably, there are special problems of privacy in the use of technologies. However, ethics is inherent with technological developments. Humans will ultimately decide how these technologies will further the universal good in society. A basic code will be a starting point by which all the controversial issues and debates can be further accommodated and finally settled.
The guidelines presented by the US Federal Trade Commission are mainly self regulatory policies to enhance customer privacy. (Quenel, 2004) These include the following:
1. Notice: search engine companies and other data finders must disclose their research practices prior to the collection of personal information from users so that they are made conscious of the profiling activities of a website. Users must be made to understand the use of the information they give (voluntarily or indirectly), how these information are collected and the purpose for these information, if this will be shared with others or whether the users have some form of control over the disclosure of their information. (Ibid.)
Notices must also identity the recipient of the data, if the giving of the information is voluntary or enforced, and the process by which the search engine or any other company will cover the confidentiality, the integrity and the quality clauses. Websites must have a privacy policy and it must thoroughly explain how the personal data will be utilized before the user enters the purchase process.
2. Choice: After being informed of the notice, users must be able to select their active participation or non participation in the data gathering activities. If they do not want to be notified on certain communications or advertisements, they must have an opportunity to bail out. They must also have the final say on the way their personal information may be used for purposes not included in the notice. In short, users must have the chance to properly and completely acknowledge his/her consent especially in the secondary use of his/her personal data before any data gathering procedure takes place. (Ibid.)
3. Access: If users agree with the website’s profiling activities, they must be made to access their own data. They should be able to review the accuracy and completeness of the information gathered from them. Accessing the data is tantamount to data improvement, which is beneficial for both users and the websites.
4. Security: Users’ information must be secured and protected. However, even when the commercial sites guarantee the accurateness and security of the information gathered from the users, these data must be protected from vulnerabilities such as loss or destruction. Since technology evolves, no standard security can maintain a one hundred percent guard on these data. Managerial and technical measures must be routinely enforced to secure these. (Ibid.)
Finally, the constant and continuing education of consumers or users must be promoted. Users must be informed of how their personal privacy is threatened in cyberspace. They need proper education and information on how these cookies can be controlled. They may be unaware of how a simple data or information such as their own salary or bank details could lead to their loss of privacy and even loss of material resources such as money, valuables, etc. Consumers must always explore the privacy protection tools which are also available in the Internet.
Conclusion
It is difficult to assess the impact of technology. There are positive gains and there are also risks and threats. Even when the benefits are clear, their side effects and costs may not be obvious. While convenience is their number one utility, there are many social drawbacks and disadvantages as well, to our society at large. At the onset, the Internet has brought a lot of convenience to most of us. Yet, in hindsight, there were negative consequences to it.
In general, ethical dilemmas surface in the use of these technologies. One of these ethical grounds or issues is the loss of privacy occurs. The major contention in these cases, as presented through Google’s privacy infringement, is the question of making personal data public. The entitlement to privacy also contradicts with the depth by which a person can secure the personal information which is apt to his own personal requirements. There are several disagreements in implementing these privacy rights and obligations in the real world.
Those who use Google and other websites, in general, must be made aware that their personal information is used and stored by these cyber entities. Fundamental measures such as deleting or blocking cookies from Google, among others, will not resolve the broad issue. Users must be cautioned and they must be on guard. However, they must be protected by the laws and regulations in cyberspace as well as in their localities.
Private initiatives are not sufficient to maintain privacy and confidentiality of information in cyberspace. Governments and commerical organizations and international associations and institutions must accept the ethical responsibility of keeping online users safe and protected. Privacy legislations must be pursued and it must be enforced to institutionalize changes in the use of private information in cyberspace. The Information Age has created ubiquitous databases of personal information through various sectors in social aspects, professional spheres, private enterprises, government institutions, other public and private organizations, and many more. However, up to now, privacy and security problems are taken as isolated cases. Privacy advocates must push more initiatives to drive individual protection to a culture of openess and responsibility and the respect for privacy among the netizens.
References:
“About Gmail.” (2012). Google Website. Web. Retrieved on March 13, 2012 from, http://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en_GB/more.html.
Baase, S. (2007). A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethicl Issues for Computing and the Internet, 3rd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Battelle, J. (September, 2005). The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture. New York: Portfolio.
Brown, S. (June 30, 2007). Google, Privacy and You. Web. Retrieved on March 13, 2012 from, http://modernl.com/article/google-privacy-and-you.
DeLorme, D. E., Zinkhan, G. M. and French, W. (2001) Ethics and the internet: Issues associated with qualitative research, Journal of Business Ethics, 33, 271-286.
Google Website. (2012). Company Information. Retrieved on March 13, 2012 from, http://www.google.com/about/company/.
Lagorio, C. (May 9, 2011). What's Behind Google's Tactics? Web. Retrieved on March 13, 2012 from, http://www.inc.com/staff-blog/whats-behind-googles-tactics.html.
Moore, J. (September 11, 2008). Customer privacy issues with Google's Gmail email service. Helium Website. Retrieved on March 13, 2012 from, http://www.helium.com/items/1178179-customer-privacy-issues-with-googles-gmail-email-service.
Quenel, G. (2004). Managing the Digital; Enterprise. Web. Retrieved on March 13, 2012 from, https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:-xsylXzQJbcJ:membres.multimania.fr/gquenel/site/files/doc/Ass10.pdf+privacy+issue+%2B+google+%2B+related+to+cyberspace&hl=tl&gl=ph&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjhH7FfkJd_OAJYci4lDU5zA7y6Iv2xuGXLbQJ9lIkrSNYTJVTP-BABm8CfUnQOwr8RcZJf0PM16LN3AmOL3FRrTpu1lsY0WL958VZ1RLoIFR6c3ZfBRrjm_5IDPtJFuxI99rvv&sig=AHIEtbQfzql-HlVs5czbLGrNxC2N-n0yOQ.
Shontell, A. (May 4, 2011). 13 Unusual Ways Sergey Brin And Larry Page Made Google The Company To Beat. Business Insider Website. Retrieved on March 13, 2011 from, http://www.businessinsider.com/history-sergey-brin-larry-page-and-google-strategy-2011-3?op=1.
“What's Google's Biggest Strategic Issue?” (2010). The Leader's Guide to Radical Management. Retrieved on March 16, 2012 from, http://stevedenning.typepad.com/steve_denning/2010/12/whats-googles-biggest-strategic-issue.html.
Wood, M. (2010). Google Buzz: Privacy Nightmare. Cnet News Website. Web. Retrieved on March 13, 2012 from, http://news.cnet.com/8301-31322_3-10451428-256.html.
Brooks, Rochelle. (2010). The development of a Code of Ethics: An online classroom approach to making connections between ethical foundations and the challenges presented by Information Technology. American Journal of Business Education, 3(10),1-13.
Spinello, R. (2000). CyberEthics: Morality and Law in Cyberspace. Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
