The Think Tank

In 1996 Larry Page and Sergey Brin invented an internet search engine that revolutionized the industry.  Starting out in the humble surroundings of a friend’s garage in Menlo Park, California Google quickly grew to be a true tech giant, rivaled only by Microsoft.  Today it employs almost 10,000 people, holds nearly 80% of the market share (leaving Yahoo in a very distant 2nd) and processes an estimated 3 billion queries per month.  The companies popularity has become so great that the word “Google” is not just a name, its a verb.  Both the Webster and Oxford dictionaries list the term “Googling” as using the Google search engine to find information on the internet.

It achieved this incredible level of success by offering awesome products at the awesome price of “free”.  The money comes from the ads that other companies purchase and appear along the edges of the search screens.
From the very start the company has used the motto “Don’t be evil”, and part of its mission statement is to provide “unbiased, accurate, and free access to information.”  Pretty lofty claims.  But does the company live up to that reputation?  We had a discussion about that the other night during my Holiday Open House and so I thought I’d look in to it.

Google, which at one time was the fair-haired child of the tech business, has increasingly found itself facing some hard criticisms, similar to what Microsoft faced in the 1990’s.  There have been a lot of accusations that Google has become so large that anyone wanting to advertise on the net must do so according to Google’s terms or else be left off of their servers and out of 80% of people’s searches, making it all but impossible to do business.  These sorts of accusations come with the territory for industry leaders and are difficult to substantiate, although it does smack of a certain amount of truth.  That isn’t what really concerns me, though, and it isn’t where the company finds most of its criticism.

One of the things that makes Google so profitable is that it tailors the ads that it displays to the individual searching.  It does this by installing a “cookie” on your hard drive when you logon to the Google site or install any of the Google components, such as the Google Toolbar, Gmail, Gtalk or any of the others.  Cookies are basically little programs that serve as an identifier and communicate information about the computer you are using, typically the IP address, to the server you are connected to.  Cookies are commonly used by most websites and allow for the “remember me” options we see all over the web.  Typically they represent a minor security risk and are viewed as a necessary evil by most people, if they are considered at all.

But Google took the use of cookies a little farther.  Whereas most cookies expire when you close your web navigator or after a few days or weeks, Google’s cookie does not expire until 2038.  The little delicacy sits on your computer and communicates every search query you make and every link you click on back to Googles servers, where the information is used to figure out what kind of sites you like to visit and therefore what kind of ads you are most likely to respond to.  By customizing the ads that their users see, Google dramatically increased the percentage of people who followed the pay-to-play links and made everyone a lot of money.  It was a stroke of genius.  99% of Google’s revenue comes from these ads.

Here’s the wrinkle.  In several different articles, Google representatives have very proudly stated that in nine years of operation they have “never knowingly deleted a single search query.”  Nor have they deleted any of the emails sent or received by Gmail or any of the conversations that take place every day on Google Talk.  All of that information is sitting in text files someplace in the basement of Googleplex.

You don’t need to be a hardcore conspiracy theorist to see the potential problems with that.  When I raised this point in our weekend conversation, my friend said that Google had never given over any information to any one, and that their records were used only for targeting their advertising.  And indeed, we all remember earlier this year when Google spit in the Justice Departments eye and refused to hand over search queries regarding pornographic websites.  But in an interview with Mother Jones magazine, Google Associate Council Nancy Wong said that Google has been subpoenaed for user records and that the company has complied, but declined to comment on the number of subpoenas or what type of information was handed over.  Even the Google website says that the company “does comply with valid legal processes, such as search warrants, court orders, or subpoenas seeking personal information.”  But as the aftermath of “War on Terror” has shown us, those “legal processes” aren’t always so legal.

“What’s the problem with the feds looking into my records?” you might ask.  “If I have nothing to hide, why does it matter what someone might know?”  Well, there are several rebuttals to that idea.  You might want to ask some of the AOL users whose personal information was accidentally made public what the harm is.  Would user 1997374 have wanted the world to know that he was looking up information on increasing erections and better cunnilingus techniques?  Or what about user 22155378 who repeatedly looked for information on Marijuana detox?  Would he or she have wanted that information made public?  I’m guessing not.  Some people may believe that a user number or IP address does not correlate to a name, but it does.  Having the IP address of a given computer is akin to having a license plate number: that alone does not give you the person’s name or address, but with it you can get other information that will reveal exactly who you are.

Even more scary to me is that Google has proven itself willing to acquiesce to governmental demands if it is advantageous enough.  In dealing with the government of China, Google agreed to filter the content that it would provide to Chinese users based on the demands of the countries rulers.  How does that mesh with their “unbiased, accurate, and free access to information” claim?

One of the things my friend said the other night when I told him I was apprehensive about having that much personal information warehoused was that “sensitive information shouldn’t be discussed in email or chat programs anyway.”  And sure, he has a point.  But the broader point is this: raw information can be taken out of context.  And its not like our government hasn’t gone on witch hunts before.  Remember the McCarthy Communist trials?

Throughout the 1950’s Senator Joseph McCarthy led an unconstitutional crusade against suspected Communists and Communist sympathizers.  There is a great movie pertaining to this called Goodnight, and Good Luck, which tells the story of the fight between McCarthy and Edward R. Murrow that eventually led to end of the Communist crusades.  But long before they came to an end, Senator McCarthy and many other governmental and private review boards pulled people off the streets and demanded that they prove they weren’t working for the Russians.  The accused were seldom allowed council and most of the evidence against them was never made public, for reasons of “national security”.  People were not allowed to face their accusers, and in some cases were sent to prison based on the testimony of people they had never met and no judge ever heard from.  Even for those who weren’t sent to prison, being accused of sympathizing with the Communist Party was enough to cost you your job and livelihood, banks wouldn’t lend to you, people wouldn’t hire you and your neighbors often would destroy your property and even take your life.

McCarthy’s power seemed almost endless.  Eventually though, do in no small part to the televised fights between Ed Murrow and the Senator, McCarthy was proven to be a despot.  Most if not all of the convictions were overturned, most of the laws passed were declared unconstitutional and overturned, and people’s names were cleared.

Of course, that was all at the end of a 10 year march and the damage had already been done: lives had been ruined, property seized and people killed.  And all of it was thanks to baseless claims.  What would have happened if McCarthy could point to 57 emails and countless searches for organizations linked one way or another with the Communist Party?  Would McCarthyism have died in 60’s, or would this country be an entirely different place today?

Here’s an example of what could happen today.  I like to write stories.  I hope one day to get them published.  Many of the adventure stories I write deal with paramilitary groups and anti-terrorism squads.  As such I have done a lot of research into Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and many themes that relate to terrorism.  Our government has already set the precedent that people can be snatched off the street and transported to Guantanamo Bay or other detention centers and interrogated without any of our constitutional protections if the government feels the person in question is a terrorist or a terrorist supporter.  What might they think about my searches into terror groups should they be allowed access to my Google records?  What might you think if you heard that I was on trial for being a terrorist supporter and that among other evidence, I had visited sites where Al-Qaeda left messages and that I had started searching out information on Osama bin Laden all the way back in 1996?  Would you find that more compelling then if they cited undisclosed facts against me?  I’m guessing that most people would.  But as I said earlier, all of that “evidence” has been taken out of context.  I was simply doing book research.

You might think that a farfetched idea.  You might say that America is different now.  But remember that McCarthyism existed only 50 years ago, and many of the same people are in power now as were then.  Robert Byrd has been a sitting Senator since 1959, Strom Thurmand served from 1956 until his death in 2003, and Ed Kennedy has been Massachusetts Senator since 1962 – just to name a few.  In fact six of the 20 longest serving Senators have held their seats in the last 50 years.

The Bush administration wanted the Patriot Act and uses it to wiretap US citizens right now.  Clinton allowed the FBI to monitor the books we check out at the library.  And they want even more power, with the so called Terrorist Tracking, Identification, and Prosecution Act they very well may try for access to to the very kind of information currently warehoused on Google’s servers, if they don’t already have it.  Of course the obvious point is, if they knew they were tracking and identifying real terrorists, they wouldn’t need new laws.  But they don’t know for sure who the terrorists are, so they want access to our cell records and search records and our emails so they can read between the lines and ascertain if we are terrorists or not.

So… is Google evil?  The answer is “Probably not”.  But they do have an awful lot of information stockpiled on all of us.  And as sure as the day is long, someone wants that information: be it salesmen, hackers or our very own government.  Even if Google has no intention of using their power for any dastardly purposes, the simple fact that they have these detailed glimpses into our lives represents a threat to our personal privacy.

Am I advocating a boycot of Google?  No.  I use many of their of services and I like them very much.  I just think people should be aware of the man who might be behind the curtain.  And even if he’s not there now, he could be there tomorrow.

If you agree with my sentiments please call, write or email your congressional representative and tell them to support Rep. Ed Markey’s (D-Mass) legislation that would protect internet searches as personal space, just like your home.