When I need to know about SEO, I don’t go to some spammy search marketing scientician who claims to have reverse-engineered Google. I go to the source: Matt Cutts. But while reading Matt’s blog the other day and noticed that he had taken umbrage at a study claiming that two-thirds of Americans object to online tracking (only 66 percent?). Matt’s objection is that that one of the authors of the study, Chris Jay Hoofnagle, did not disclose his affiliation with the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), an advocacy group that has lobbied to have both Gmail and Google Docs shut down. Could this be a flame war in the making?

Que Es Muy Macho?

Matt’s criticism is actually very timely, given the recent pressure that the FTC has put on bloggers to clearly disclose their relationships with advertisers. Furthermore, it seems completely preposterous to shut down Google’s online services when their data collection policies are seemingly par for the course. Shutting down Gmail and Google Docs would doubtlessly have a negative impact not only on private citizens and public corporations, but also on government agencies that need some kind of alternative to Microsoft Office.

EPIC FAIL?

On the other hand, EPIC is not an advertiser paying Hoofnagle to write for them, nor are they an industry lobby group wining and dining politicians. Quite the opposite, in fact. EPIC is a world-class privacy advocate group and they have done some excellent surveys on privacy and human rights around the world, which I once used as a resource for creating an interactive map of data privacy and protection laws around the world. They’ve also done a bit of work on issues like data retention that are near and dear to Google’s heart. One of the things I learned from reading these surveys is that data protection and privacy laws in the United States are lagging far behind those of the EU, Asian tiger economies, and even emerging economies in South America. For example, in the U.S. I do not have a guaranteed legal right to demand that you Google folks tell me a) what personal information you have on me b) how you are using that information, and c) who you are sharing that information with. Nor do I have the legal right to see that information or demand that you correct any of that data if it is inaccurate. Your privacy policy informs Google users about some of these ABCs, but its no substitution for legal protection against abuse of my personally identifiable information.

I would prefer that Hoofnagle lobby the government to enact stronger data privacy and protection laws that regulate the information that Google collect through their services. After all, Google is playing by the rules, and it is really pathetic that our government has to do things like set up so-called Safe Harbor Principles just so that our banks can continue to do business with EU countries. Google seems to have a reasonable, albeit naive, stance towards personal privacy and I think there is an opportunity for them to engage and work with Hoofnagle on these public policy issues. After all, proper control of data privacy and protection serve to facilitate, rather than hinder, the free flow of information by creating an atmosphere of trust and integrity.

There’s a Sucker Born Every Minute

The basic problem I personally have with Google (and Facebook, and and and) is that the company is setting a bad precedent in terms of what corporations are allowed to do with my information, and in terms of the rights I retain to said information. Google may use its powers only for Good, but I’m quite certain they are aware of all the naughty things that data brokers and identity thieves do with our information. And for every one Google there are countless organizations and individuals acting in bad faith who are already exploiting the lack of data protection and privacy laws to their advantage. And it’s not just about the data that Google collects for marketing and advertising purposes; I have a ton of personal information stored on their servers just by merit of using those services. What if that information is lost, leaked, stolen, etc.? If it weren’t for state laws such as California’s SB-1386, Google wouldn’t even have to mention the data security breach and I might not find out until someone commits identity theft.

Bottom line: Hoofnagle, in my humble opinion, is aiming his gun at the wrong target, and I don’t see how Gmail is inherently any more dangerous than any other webmail service. Frankly, he should be a LOT more worried about companies like AT&T, and the government would be overreaching its authority by shutting down Google Docs or Gmail based on these arguments. On the other hand, maybe Hoofnagle does have a point, and a lot of other privacy advocates have warned that cloud computing and online services are a trap. I’ve already commented on the conundrum of participation and property rights in the age of electronic information–when my information becomes Google’s data and I have less control over my identity, my media, etc. than Google does, something is seriously wrong with our society and the legal frameworks that are supposed to personal privacy. I mean, what if Google claimed rights to my car simply because I parked in their lot, and possibly even after that?

But to be fair, we as citizens are also to blame for our complacency. It’s personally shocking that Americans have such distrust of the government knowing things about them and yet allow amoral corporations to gain access to all the intimate details of our lives. I strongly feel that my personal information, more than any idea I might come up with, should be treated as intellectual property. MY intellectual property.