W6 Discussion: Case Study on Google: The Drive to Balance Privacy with Profit

Chapter 10: Google: The Drive to Balance Privacy with Profit: 10-5d From Many Privacy Policies to One Book Title: Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases Printed By: Kennisha Holloman ([email protected]) © 2019 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-5d From Many Privacy Policies to One

For the majority of its history, Google has had separate privacy policies for most of its

products, each detailing how Google collects and uses information for that product. By 2012

Google’s rapid growth and expansion from just search into an Internet behemoth had

resulted in over 70 separate Google privacy policies across its offerings. This was beneficial

in one sense, as consumers who took the time to read the policies could understand in

great detail how Google was operating each product. On the other hand, the overwhelming

amount of policies was confusing, tedious, and time-consuming to sift through, and the

average consumer would have been hard-pressed to decipher them.

In 2012 Google announced it was unifying its myriad privacy policies into just one, which

would govern Google’s practices across its entire organization. At first glance, this seemed

like an efficient change. However, it had many subtler implications that sparked widespread

concern. Could consumers still opt out of specific information-sharing in individual products?

Did the new policy adequately explain all the different ways Google gathered and shared

information so consumers could be properly informed? Did the new policy expand Google’s

information-gathering power under the guise of making things simpler?

One especially concerning aspect of Google’s new policy was that it allowed the company

to take all the information it gathered on its users across all its products and combine them

together. Coupled with the new unified login system, the new privacy policy allowed Google

to use information on a much larger and more encompassing scale. Users’ Google

searches might affect the ads they see on their Android phones, YouTube browsing histories

could be combined with Gmail activity to better understand user interests, and more. Was

this “all-seeing eye” approach acceptable, especially for such a large company with so

many widely used services?

Understandably, the announcement of a unified privacy policy led to considerable backlash.

Google received letters from Congress members and U.S. attorneys general expressing

concern about the new policy. Competitors such as Microsoft took advantage of the

situation to run ads drawing consumer attention to Google’s potentially unsettling approach

to user privacy. The EU asked Google to delay implementation of the policy until it could

study and better understand its implications. In defending itself, Google emphasized that it

was not gathering any more information than before, nor was it making any changes to

existing users’ ability to opt out of information-sharing or use product-specific privacy

settings. It was merely making its existing practices simpler and clearer for customers to

understand, as well as improving its own ability to serve users by unifying the information it

gathered across offerings. It argued the new policy was in legal compliance and refused to

delay the transition. On March 1, 2012, the unified policy took effect.

Google’s new privacy policy was poorly received in Europe. The EU Justice Commissioner

questioned the legality of Google’s new policy according to EU law. French data regulators

launched an investigation concerning the new policy, believing the policy might not adhere

to EU Internet transparency and privacy laws. Google maintained its new policy met EU

regulations. However, in 2013 six European countries banded together to take legal action

against Google for not complying with the requests of the government. Google has since

been fined by several European countries for breaking their privacy or data protection laws,

including nearly $1 million by Spain and $204,000 by France. The Netherlands threatened a

fine of up to $15 million if Google does not comply with its desired changes. The company

narrowly avoided yet another fine in the United Kingdom by agreeing to change its privacy

policy for U.K. users, and there are signs it may make such a change Europe-wide in an

attempt to allay the concerns of the EU and its member nations. Google has learned that

activities which are legal in one country might not be legal in another.

The public’s reaction to Google’s unified privacy policy once again brings to light the more

general debate over the company’s gathering and use of user information. Supporters argue

that Google uses this information to create improved services for users. It helps the firm

remain competitive with strong rivals such as Apple and Facebook. Critics are concerned

that Google is constantly overreaching and seems to have little actual concern for user

privacy, only slowing or backtracking when it is forced to by consumer backlash or

governmental regulators. Critics are also worried by the ease with which Google appears to

change its policies, which could spell trouble for users and their privacy rights. In 2016, for

instance, Google—which had previously banned its online advertising subsidiary

DoubleClick from using personally identifiable information—removed the ban. Double-Click,

which uses cookies to track and store user information, may be able to use personal

information to develop more targeted advertising campaigns based on user history. These

concerns are especially serious because so many users depend on some aspect of Google,

whether it be Gmail, Android phones, or other services.

Chapter 10: Google: The Drive to Balance Privacy with Profit: 10-5d From Many Privacy Policies to One Book Title: Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases Printed By: Kennisha Holloman ([email protected]) © 2019 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

© 2020 Cengage Learning Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may by reproduced or used in any form or by any means - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, or in any other manner - without the written permission of the copyright holder.