ethical

In the online world of today, does privacy really exist?

The notion of “Internet Privacy” is considered by some to be an oxymoron in today’s online world. This article explores online privacy in light of recent events in China and stark comments from the Google CEO on his views towards online privacy.

The CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, has a controversial approach to internet privacy. His recent statement in a television interview with CNBC that:

“if you don’t want people to know what you’re doing online, then don’t do it”

is thought-provoking at the very least, and potentially sinister, if you consider the arsenal of information stored within his organisation on practically every member of the online community. While few will disagree with the invasion of a terrorist’s privacy, or the outing of otherwise nefarious individuals, certain uses of information provide a very real cause for concern.

Recent events in China, where human rights activists are alleged to have been targeted from within China, and in cases where the Chinese Government may request personal data in respect of these individuals from Google, the CEO of Google appears to have a casual approach to the protection of online privacy which may ring alarm bells for some. Of course, it does depend on the intended context of the comment, but the insinuation is that what Google knows about any given individual will be shared with whichever authority requests the information; a power that places the responsibility and privacy of your information in the hands of authorities.

On another level, this comment can be seen as a warning. A warning to all internet users that someone, somewhere, knows what you are doing online. It is a fact that emails exist as copies on a multitude of servers and that internet search records and ISP logs are all semi-permanent records of your online activity, which is what Eric Schmidt may have been alluding to. They exist, and therefore the possibility of your online activity being discovered exists. Schmidt’s comment could equate to saying

“don’t write anything down if you don’t want other people to know about it”.

except that he and his organisation hold written records containing personal information about many of us, and the questions in the interview were designed to investigate what he intends to do with it all. At which point it becomes a little unnerving, as perhaps an ideal answer (whether truthful or not) would have been:

“Google takes online privacy very seriously and goes to great lengths to ensure that your data is held secure within our organisation”.

However, the existence of online records is only part of the issue. The way in which these records are accessed and used is the salient point. Take this example from a recently published interview about privacy with a Facebook employee; the source is questionable, but the issues it raises are very real. For example:

“See, the thing is — and I don’t know how much you know about it — it’s all stored in a database on the backend. Literally everything. Your messages are stored in a database, whether deleted or not. So we can just query the database, and easily look at it without every logging into your account. That’s what most people don’t understand.”

So, pretty much any organisation you have touch-points with and their employees have access to your personal information. Additionally, any Government wanting to know about your online habits can snoop on you and, all in all, the notion of internet privacy would appear to be a bit of a misnomer at the very least.

Tags: , ,

0 comments Add This

Are we still the cowboys of the new frontier?

For years SEO has been regarded as a dark art; the cowboys of the internet running amok on the new frontier. To some extent this was a well earned reputation, with earlier search engines proving almost too easy to manipulate. It was a boom-time when anyone with half a brain and the motivation could make money from SEO. However, things have now moved on and this reputation is proving difficult to shake.

Recently we have been seeing some really interesting articles coming out of publications like NMA, Revolution and Marketing that present SEO well, making the most of best-practice strategies, smart link generation tactics and providing a useful resource for organizations looking to engage with an agency.

However, there are some major publications that are still peddling that dark and dirty image, blissfully unaware that some of us have worked damn hard to distance ourselves from it.

On Saturday, the Guardian published a seemingly naïve article that talks about SEO in the most dismissive terms, describing it as a dark art and quoting the Guardian’s head of SEO as saying A common way to get a lot of links very quickly is by getting people in India or somewhere to make them for you.

The majority of big agencies are unwilling to take such risks with their clients. Major high street names will not tolerate a swift banning from the search results and are usually very prescriptive with their requirements. Increasingly, they are seeing SEO as a long-term strategy and their brand reputation is paramount.

Similarly, many of the bigger agencies are very transparent and very open about the methods they use and even provide training to organizations wishing to carry out their own SEO. At the top, SEO is far from being a dark art.

Don’t get me wrong though, not all of the top agencies are as clean as they make out; I know of a few that indulge in paid linking from the aforementioned Indians and aren’t adverse to dishing out the lies to keep the balance-sheet looking good (I will not name names).

However despite there being a fair degree of openness and maturity at the top, there are still plenty selling snake oil to small businesses at the bottom. Small companies often see SEO as a magic bullet that will bring them an untold bounty in sales, and there are people that will capitalize on that perception, using any tactic they can to drive search engine positioning.

Ultimately, for all the Guardian uses some very sweeping generalizations about the industry, there is plenty of merit in the article. Content does need to survive on its own merits and a site needs to deserve its popularity. For all we strive to rise above the low and dirty image, there is still plenty of tar on the brush and it is inevitable that some will get splashed around, but invective like this doesn’t help the tarnished reputation of an industry trying to better itself.

Tags: ,

2 comments Share