smoothmoniker • Apr 13, 2004 12:14 pm
I'm sure you've all heard of GMail by now, Google's proposed free email service. 1 gig of storage, all your emails saved and searchable by content. They pay for this free service by scanning your incoming email, and placing ads in the window that correspond to the text of the email.
Well, of course, as with any good idea, there are morons opposing it on the ground that it’s an invasion of privacy. This is such a specious argument. The right to privacy fundamentally hangs on the principle of consent. If I consent to let you search my underwear drawer, then there’s no violation of privacy; I’ve vacated my right. Google is not “secretly” mining information here – they’ve been vocal and public in advertising what they intend to do if you sign up for the service.
I guess what fires me up here are two things. First, the sense that we “ignorant consumers” need to be protected from the product, that we are incapable of making an informed decision as to whether or not Google’s product is worth giving up some privacy to use. I call horseshit. That’s my choice to make, not the choice of the California state senate.
The second is that this is obvious pandering to a simple-minded constituency group. There is such vitriol against the “Evil Corporations” right now that any move a company makes is suspect, and clearly must be an abuse of the consumer. Just because a company offers a product doesn’t mean you have to use it. They think they can offer a useful service to you, and in return they rent your eyeballs for a few seconds, which they charge other companies to use. That’s not evil, that’s capitalism. As long as there are competing services, as long as everyone is engaging with informed consent, what’s the problem here?
-sm
Well, of course, as with any good idea, there are morons opposing it on the ground that it’s an invasion of privacy. This is such a specious argument. The right to privacy fundamentally hangs on the principle of consent. If I consent to let you search my underwear drawer, then there’s no violation of privacy; I’ve vacated my right. Google is not “secretly” mining information here – they’ve been vocal and public in advertising what they intend to do if you sign up for the service.
I guess what fires me up here are two things. First, the sense that we “ignorant consumers” need to be protected from the product, that we are incapable of making an informed decision as to whether or not Google’s product is worth giving up some privacy to use. I call horseshit. That’s my choice to make, not the choice of the California state senate.
The second is that this is obvious pandering to a simple-minded constituency group. There is such vitriol against the “Evil Corporations” right now that any move a company makes is suspect, and clearly must be an abuse of the consumer. Just because a company offers a product doesn’t mean you have to use it. They think they can offer a useful service to you, and in return they rent your eyeballs for a few seconds, which they charge other companies to use. That’s not evil, that’s capitalism. As long as there are competing services, as long as everyone is engaging with informed consent, what’s the problem here?
-sm