Further thoughts on Google's new Privacy Policies

Like many Google users, I received an email from Google on January 28th detailing the new privacy policies that have generated so much media coverage and debate. They are worth a careful read.

Since my previous post, a Google employee also contacted me to explain some of the benefits of these new policies. This included creating a profile that ensures that search results reflect your interests. You can see your own profile (and edit it) by click here.

To quote the same Google employee:

The profile is all fairly broad attributes, demographics such as age range and sex, and broad interests. You don't have to worry about searching for some odd fetish (research for a book, of course) and having ads show up later, because the odd things wouldn't have a category in the profile. As we put it, "Google does not associate sensitive interest categories with your ads preferences."

So I am certainly not advocating giving up your Gmail account or your Android phone or boycotting Google's many services. But I do feel that most users do not understand the implications of Google's policy changes, either for good or ill, because most online data-gathering and profiling activities are largely invisible to them.

In fact, Google's new privacy policy offers a good opportunity for both personal reflection and public debate about what privacy means in the digital age.

I believe that those who engage in data gathering, like Google, have an obligation to educate the public about how their users' information is tracked, stored, and disseminated.

Consumers also need to think about the implications of having personal information tracked and stored indefinitely. While Google may protect users' privacy today, none of us can see into the future far enough to fully understand how this data might be used in ten years or twenty or beyond.

Just as advances in understanding the human genome required legal safeguards regarding an individual's genetic information, we may also be reaching the point where similar legal protections may be necessary to protect an individual's personal privacy on the internet.

Finally, the potential for abuse of this information may be low today, but that could also change in the future, particularly with regard to government policies on terrorist or other illicit activity (and that's taking only the U.S. government into account).

The privacy debate will continue, and we may well see Google's new policies as a salutary reminder of how crucial these issues are when more and more of our daily activities are transacted on the internet.

P.S. For two opposing views on the privacy debate, see the op-eds of Givens and Robertson.

Correction to the Original Post: The letter I referenced from thirty-two privacy and civil rights organizations is not a recent letter but one from 2004, which is not relevant to the current privacy policy changes.