Inside the mind of Google (CNBC)
They take a look into what Google is, what it does, and what it all means for you and how you use it.
Ever since the beginning, sometime in 1998-1999 when my High School librarian evangelized Google (over Lycos, dog pile etc) I've wondered what the point of privacy online means when you consider repositories of it like Google.
You could have found ways of data-mining pre-Google but if you really want to believe that there is a hole in privacy for you online activities, it has to be Google. Especially given what CNBC's report tries to say about it. That as long as you are logged in, and because Google says as much as your data isn't totally private that you really shouldn't expect it to be if some agency demanded Google mine out whatever they had to be used as evidence against you. etc
Now I'm still not convinced that Google is evil. Obviously. Maybe I'm just naive though.
Ask yourself a question, as I asked it of myself, which is really more important anyway? your online privacy? your DNA? your work history? your credit history etc.
What agencies have access when they need to, do. what does it matter what motivates them.
Simply, if you're honest and have no need for privacy, what is there to worry about? And if you have stuff to be worried about and are foolish enough to put enough data in a non private place.. the likely-hood that any meaningful profile can be mined out of your personal information from a repository like Google.. is scarce.
Like could they present your last decade of surfing habits in court against you?
Would a PI be able to mine out your personal life from Google, yahoo or Face Book and present it to people who want to know more about you before committing to you?
Which in itself is an interesting concept. Should you present a vetted prospectus from those networking sites before expecting your new partner accepts you, and they one of their own for you to look over?
Besides being Saint Peter's Book of Life, your chapter at least, how big would it be? what would such a consensus even cover to be significant?
What would Google, metaphorically, have to say about you if you or someone else asked it?
Then I look at it another way. If it is something so precious, akin to your genetic makeup, but relating to your personality and life, motivations and desires etc, couldn't someone build an accurate model of who you are based on the really high level stuff?
Could a virtual you be modeled in some Google computer based on all the stuff you put into it? how you think, the people you know, the topics you're interested in etc?
Where BSG Caprica seems far less stupid if you think of it like that, AND if you think about how much data 12 years really is.. and then even more if you use the service literally for everything for many years so that it can build a really good idea of who you are.
Again though, IF Google cares. I doubt they do. What point would there be in tracking individuals? that's supreme arrogance.
Instead they can track entire demographics like meteorologists do the weather. Those maps they can build about what people need (to know) and by the data they provide, has to be far more valuable than dealing with their userbase on an individual level.
Where again, I might be lazy, too lazy to tweet, but I will blog. I will put the time into making points versus posting slightly delayed thoughts to the internet. Given the twitter database is being archived, even skype keeps a database too (which I personally archived and had a ugh.. I don't need anyone reading this moment), on a very real level tweets, Facebook and Google, all that data probably could make a very good model for who you are.
I'd rather the day never dawn when a generic AI, a program smart enough to understand language and speak, goes online that can have such a model applied to it.. and have to look into the mirror, or have that ghost talk to people and get 'me' right.. more right than the actual me. Imagine if they needed to data mine but could instead (of wasting all the time trying to make sense of years of data), just talk to a virtual head and have it respond the way you would. There's more than enough evidence for people giving such constructs a pass. That's really what's scary. Putting that data to use, against you, because people are too lazy to engage you or all of the data (which I'm happier they never can, because there is no way to put it into useful context).
They take a look into what Google is, what it does, and what it all means for you and how you use it.
Ever since the beginning, sometime in 1998-1999 when my High School librarian evangelized Google (over Lycos, dog pile etc) I've wondered what the point of privacy online means when you consider repositories of it like Google.
You could have found ways of data-mining pre-Google but if you really want to believe that there is a hole in privacy for you online activities, it has to be Google. Especially given what CNBC's report tries to say about it. That as long as you are logged in, and because Google says as much as your data isn't totally private that you really shouldn't expect it to be if some agency demanded Google mine out whatever they had to be used as evidence against you. etc
Now I'm still not convinced that Google is evil. Obviously. Maybe I'm just naive though.
Ask yourself a question, as I asked it of myself, which is really more important anyway? your online privacy? your DNA? your work history? your credit history etc.
What agencies have access when they need to, do. what does it matter what motivates them.
Simply, if you're honest and have no need for privacy, what is there to worry about? And if you have stuff to be worried about and are foolish enough to put enough data in a non private place.. the likely-hood that any meaningful profile can be mined out of your personal information from a repository like Google.. is scarce.
Like could they present your last decade of surfing habits in court against you?
Would a PI be able to mine out your personal life from Google, yahoo or Face Book and present it to people who want to know more about you before committing to you?
Which in itself is an interesting concept. Should you present a vetted prospectus from those networking sites before expecting your new partner accepts you, and they one of their own for you to look over?
Besides being Saint Peter's Book of Life, your chapter at least, how big would it be? what would such a consensus even cover to be significant?
What would Google, metaphorically, have to say about you if you or someone else asked it?
Then I look at it another way. If it is something so precious, akin to your genetic makeup, but relating to your personality and life, motivations and desires etc, couldn't someone build an accurate model of who you are based on the really high level stuff?
Could a virtual you be modeled in some Google computer based on all the stuff you put into it? how you think, the people you know, the topics you're interested in etc?
Where BSG Caprica seems far less stupid if you think of it like that, AND if you think about how much data 12 years really is.. and then even more if you use the service literally for everything for many years so that it can build a really good idea of who you are.
Again though, IF Google cares. I doubt they do. What point would there be in tracking individuals? that's supreme arrogance.
Instead they can track entire demographics like meteorologists do the weather. Those maps they can build about what people need (to know) and by the data they provide, has to be far more valuable than dealing with their userbase on an individual level.
Where again, I might be lazy, too lazy to tweet, but I will blog. I will put the time into making points versus posting slightly delayed thoughts to the internet. Given the twitter database is being archived, even skype keeps a database too (which I personally archived and had a ugh.. I don't need anyone reading this moment), on a very real level tweets, Facebook and Google, all that data probably could make a very good model for who you are.
I'd rather the day never dawn when a generic AI, a program smart enough to understand language and speak, goes online that can have such a model applied to it.. and have to look into the mirror, or have that ghost talk to people and get 'me' right.. more right than the actual me. Imagine if they needed to data mine but could instead (of wasting all the time trying to make sense of years of data), just talk to a virtual head and have it respond the way you would. There's more than enough evidence for people giving such constructs a pass. That's really what's scary. Putting that data to use, against you, because people are too lazy to engage you or all of the data (which I'm happier they never can, because there is no way to put it into useful context).
ivonne:
hi baby! 
lzim:
yo