Super Secret Internet Stuff

user-pic
Vote 0 Votes

Initially when I was reading chapter 7 in Blum I was torn. I wasn't really sure how I wanted to react to how these websites and their super secret data centers work or don't work since at least in the instance of Google we have no idea. I was pretty put off about the way Google acted in Blum's interview and how they would give no straight answer or explain anything. Part of me thought hey I'm an American and if they have information on me or any of my stored data then they should be giving me full disclosure as well as access to it. But then the duality of the American culture kicked in and I had the reaction "good for you Google" that information is mine and it is personal and private and no one but me should have access too or even know that that information exists. That goes for everyones data and so if that means no one gets access to the data center in order to keep my information private then so be it. Once this reaction occured I was then a little put off for the opposite reason once Blum got to Facebook where there didn't seem to be any secrets and if Blum had asked to have access to private files they would have said sure no problem we'll e-mail them to you. This shouldn't have surprised me, Facebook prides itself on it's openness and free unhindered access to information for everyone. This is one reason I personally use facebook very sparingly, maybe I am just too private of a person for all this openness and sharing of all the mundane issues of my life which in the wrong hands could potentially be used against me.

So after really considering the issue I am going to have to side with Google on this one. I feel that there are certain things that we don't need to know or have access to in order to protect the greater good. Google is a company charged with keeping its users and their information safe from outside individuals who would just love to have access to and exploit that data. The only thing I would have liked to have seen them do was just come out and say that to Blum. By restricting his access they aren't doing anything wrong in fact they were doing it right they shouldn't have felt the need to be secrative about the fact that they were being secrative. If they had been open about the fact that they couldn't give Blum full access because the privacy of their users was more important then they wouldn't have come off as if they were trying hide the data instead of protecting it. I also came away with the feeling that maybe if Facebook was a little less forthright with information then I would feel safer and more willing to use their site more.

2 Comments

| Leave a comment

"If they (google) had been open about the fact that they couldn't give Blum full access because the privacy of their users was more important than they wouldn't have come off as if they were trying hide the data instead of protecting it"
I completely agree with this! Why should anyone access my personal information? I know that facebook kind of does whatever they want and claim to have everything on some sort of agreement form, but who really reads those? I use facebook probably more than I should, but it is my way of easily communicating with my friends and family that I do not see every day.

However, I am not so sure I would want even google to have a bunch of information about me "lying" around. That should be for private authorities only, and I do not see google as being anywhere near that.

in regards to the original quote (i'm just too lazy to copy/paste it here), I also agree! Moreover, I also have a supported thought about why Google didn't want to give Blum access to that stuff. I really don't think it is about about protecting our data, I think they just said to be look like they're the knights in armor, protecting all the mined data compiled from millions of sites. But anyone who thinks so is just kidding themselves. Google is , first and foremost, a capitalist entity. It isn't bound by some honor code. in fact, they are actually currently investigation by the government for skewing search results to favor their own. DUH! of course they'd do that, its in their best interest.
My point is: they probably told blum that shpeel and 15 minutes later, sold "anonymous statistical data" to some advertising agency.

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by birt0005 published on February 6, 2013 8:37 PM.

Let's Hope He Doesn't Find Out About WiFi was the previous entry in this blog.

Joining Continents is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.