Research Paper Instructions

example_of_well_written_opinion_paper.pdf

Home >English homework help >Research Paper Instructions

An Opinion by Author’s Name

The Electronic Privacy Information Center vs. Google Books: An Argument for User Protections

I T 3 0 1 : S e c u r i t y , P r i v a c y & E t h i c s P r o f . D . R a w l i n s o n C e n t r a l W a s h i n g t o n U n i v e r s i t y – F a l l Q u a r t e r 2 0 1 0

EPIC V. GOOGLE BOOKS

Page 2 of 8

The Electronic Privacy Information Center vs. Google Books: An Argument for User Protections

INTRODUCTION

In 2005, Google Books was taken to court over claims made by The Authors

Guild, Inc., that Google had violated the copyrights of authors, publishers and all

rights holders by scanning their books, creating an electronic database and

displaying excerpts of copyrighted materials without permission (Book Rights

Registry, 2010).

Though Google denied the claims, a preliminary settlement was reached in

November of 2008. According to the agreement, Google Books would require

readers to provide sensitive personal information in order to view digital books

offered by Google, and would in turn hand that information over to the rights

holders of the books viewed. Though the settlement asked for personal information

from users, it failed to protect their privacy.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Department of Justice, and the

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) criticized the settlement due to the

amount and nature of user information Google agreed to provide rights holders.

In September of 2009, the FTC issued a statement citing that measures

outlined in the settlement raised “serious privacy challenges because of the vast

amount of user information that could be collected” (Leibowitz, 2009).

EPIC V. GOOGLE BOOKS

Page 3 of 8

THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE ISSUE

In February of 2010, a revised version of the settlement was amended and

reviewed. However, many privacy agencies felt that the provisions in the settlement

that called for the monitoring of what users do with electronic books had yet to be

equally balanced by measures of user privacy protections.

In response, EPIC dedicated a division of their Web site to coverage of Google

Books and the pending settlement (Google Books: Policy Without Privacy, 2010).

EPIC argues that amendments made still fail to address antitrust, privacy,

and copyright concerns. The organization feels that readers' interests are not

represented, and that the settlement "threatens well-‐established standards that

safeguard intellectual freedom," "imperils longstanding Constitutional rights," and

"threatens to eviscerate state library privacy laws that safeguard library patrons in

the United States" (Google Books: Policy Without Privacy, 2010).

On February 18, 2010, EPIC president Marc Rotenberg appeared in federal

court to represent readers’ privacy and right to read anonymously. He urged the

judge to reject the settlement, stating, "A person at any library or any university in

the United States that attempted to retrieve information from Google's digital

library would be uniquely tagged and tracked. There is simply no precedent for the

creation of such power" (EPIC, 2010).

WHAT IS BEING DONE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE

In response to criticism, the pending settlement between Google and The

Authors Guild, Inc., Google has created the Book Rights Registry, a third party entity

EPIC V. GOOGLE BOOKS

Page 4 of 8

designed to mediate non-‐personally identifiable information about the usage of

Google Books. Google will not require users to create Google accounts or register

their identity in order to view pages from books covered by the settlement, or

require registration from users at terminals in public libraries.

The settlement has also resulted in Google posting a privacy policy written

specifically for Google Books online. The policy highlights the company’s key

provisions and privacy practices in relation to a consumer’s use of Google Books, as

well as several proposed practices to be put in place pending the results of the

lawsuit.

Under the heading “Practices specific to the Google Books Product,” the

policy explains that log information (including IP addresses and cookies from the

user’s browser, not user account information) is used to enforce security limits,

such as restrictions on the number of pages users can see from a particular book, in

order to fulfill contractual commitments to rights holders who license books to

Google.

The policy also states that special legal user privacy protections can be

invoked when law enforcement asks Google for information on what books a user

has viewed. According to Google, certain jurisdictions have special “books laws,”

though agencies requesting information on a user’s history must prove to a court

that the need to attain the user’s information “outweighs the reader’s interest in

reading anonymously under the United States First Amendment.” Google says that

all users affected will be notified of such requests, and that if legally permitted, they

will contact the user so that they can challenge the request.

EPIC V. GOOGLE BOOKS

Page 5 of 8

However, users will need to have Google Accounts in orders to make

purchases from Google Books “because such information is necessary to provide

access to the user who bought the book” (Google, Google Books Privacy Policy,

2010). Google says that it plans to build protections to enable users to delete or

disassociate titles of any books purchased using a Google Account.

Google plans to offer other additional privacy services to users, though they

concede that such services “have not yet been designed,” but counter that they

“know that they will honor existing privacy commitments” (Google, Google Books

On the Google Public Policy Blog, Dan Clancy, the Engineering Director for

Google Books, posted the following statement:

“Our settlement agreement hasn't yet been approved by the court, and the

services authorized by the agreement haven't been built or even designed yet. That means it's very difficult (if not impossible) to draft a detailed privacy policy. While we know that our eventual product will build in privacy protections -‐-‐ like always giving users clear information about privacy, and choices about what if any data they share when they use our services -‐-‐ we don't yet know exactly how this all will work” (Clancy, 2009).

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE

EPIC believes that the early results of the settlement and the measures

outlined in the Google Books Privacy Policy are insufficient.

The Google Books Privacy Policy states, “We do not share your personal

information with third parties, except in the narrow circumstances described in the

EPIC V. GOOGLE BOOKS

Page 6 of 8

that since Google fails to define the terms “emergencies” and “valid legal process”, it

leaves the company free to disclose information at its own discretion, meaning that

it could give information to a third party at will (EPIC, 2010).

EPIC states that The Book Rights Registry “in no way alleviates concerns

regarding the collection of information” since cookies could easily reveal the

identity of the user if they logs into a Google account during the same session, and

that cookies and IP addresses should not be stored (EPIC, 2010).

EPIC’s largest complaint, and main concern, is that Google will use

information collected from users to “create massive profiles of user of Google Books

by linking Google Book activities with other Google Services.” EPIC believes that the

company’s intent is to become “a central repository, storing vast amounts of user

information gleaned from email accounts, book searches, mapping inquiries,"

storing information under the guise of “improving of services,” rather than for

purposes of targeting advertisements (EPIC, 2010).

CONCLUSION

EPIC’s stances on Google Books and its privacy policy are correct: Privacy

policy does not mean privacy protection. Though amendments made to the

settlement provide a slightly clearer set of guidelines for the company’s handling of

privacy, Google never makes a clear statement of what rights users will have if the

company violates the measures listed in its own privacy policy.

The Google Privacy Policy (which extends over all of the company’s

products) states that the company has five overall goals and privacy principles that

EPIC V. GOOGLE BOOKS

Page 7 of 8

describes how the company addresses privacy and user information (Google, Google

Privacy Center: Transparency and Choice, 2010):

1. Use information to provide our users with valuable products and services. 2. Develop products that reflect strong privacy standards and practices. 3. Make the collection of personal information transparent. 4. Give users meaningful choices to protect their privacy. 5. Be a responsible steward of the information we hold.

Yet legally, Google can share information with outside companies and

individuals: "We have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure

of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law,

regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request, (b) enforce

applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations thereof,

protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the

public as required or permitted by law"(Google, Google Privacy Center: Privacy

Policy, 2010).

Google never clearly states how it will use information, or defines terms like

“emergency” or “security” in relation to disclosure, making any claims of

“transparency” ultimately meaningless.

In short, a privacy policy alone is simply not enough. Due to the sensitive

nature of the information that Google Books will collect and distribute, Google needs

to define its policy terminology more extensively in order to create a policy specific

enough to actually enforce. Google also needs to amend the settlement to include

EPIC’s suggestions regarding its own accountability in the case of it violating its own

EPIC V. GOOGLE BOOKS

Page 8 of 8

privacy practices. Google not only needs to protect its users from third parties, it

needs to protect users from itself.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Book Rights Registry. (2010). Google Book Settlement. (I. Rust Consulting, Producer, & Rust Consulting, Inc.) Retrieved February 28, 2010, from Google Book Settlement: http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/ Clancy, D. (2009, July 23). Google Public Policy Blog. Retrieved February 21, 2010, from Google Public Policy Blog: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/07/google-‐books-‐settlement-‐and-‐ privacy.html EPIC. Google Books: Policy Without Privacy. (2010). (The Electronic Privacy Information Center) Retrieved March 1, 2010, from Epic.org -‐ Google Books: Policy Without Privacy: http://epic.org/privacy/googlebooks/policy.html Google. (2010). Google Books. Retrieved February 20, 2010, from Google Books: http://books.google.com/ Google. (2010). Google Books Privacy Policy. Retrieved February 21, 2010, from Google Books Privacy Policy: http://books.google.com/googlebooks/privacy.html Google. (2010). Google Privacy Center: Privacy Policy. Retrieved February 21, 2010, from Google Privacy Center: Privacy Policy: http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html Google. (2010). Google Privacy Center: Transparency and Choice. Retrieved February 20, 2010, from Google Privacy Center: http://www.google.com/privacy.html Leibowitz, J. (2009, September 3). Statement of Chairman Jon Leibowitz in Response to Letters Between Google and FTC Staff Regarding Google Books and Consumer Privacy . Spinello, R. (2006). Cyberethics: Morality and Law in Cyberspace. Sudbury, MA, USA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc.