Google Road Kill: Legal Eagles Circle Data Incognita
March 17, 2021
I read “Google Must Face Suit over Snooping on Incognito Browsing.” Google created the “incognito” mode to give users of Chrome a way to browse privately. The write up states:
Google failed to kill a lawsuit alleging that it secretly scoops up troves of internet data even if users browse in “Incognito” mode to keep their search activity private.
What happens when marketing to stimulate more useful clicks collides with the reality of constant data collection?
This type of legal position it seems:
“The court concludes that Google did not notify users that Google engages in the alleged data collection while the user is in private browsing mode,” U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, wrote in her ruling.
Google, according to the article, took this position:
Incognito mode in Chrome gives you the choice to browse the internet without your activity being saved to your browser or device. As we clearly state each time you open a new incognito tab, websites might be able to collect information about your browsing activity during your session.
But Google users have to agree to Google policies. These policies seems to give the friendly, mom and pop online ad company license to capture user information. Incognito, logically, does not mean invisible. Ergo, user activity is, logically, visible.
If you are Googley, you will understand the line of reasoning.
Several observations:
- The explanation is rhetorically similar to the Gibru-gibberish output with regard to a former Googler’s research paper about “ethics”
- The use of incognito mode provides a useful item of metadata which may of use to some analytic routines used by the mom and pop online ad company, its partners, and its developers
- The involvement of the courts is part of the mom and pop, online ad company’s strategy of do, deflect, and delay via marketing and legal activities.
The hitch in the git along is that users and regulators are starting to look at the mom and pop online ad agency as a less friendly entity today than it was in the years after the company’s initial public offering.
This perception shift is incorrect. Google has been consistent in its game plan, methods, and embrace of do, deflect, and delay.
What worked in the past, however, seems to be manifesting stress fractures; for example, the interesting criticism of Microsoft and the giving in to a mere country like Australia for news content.
Litigation is expensive, and Google has the motivation and the means to wear down opponents in costly, time consuming, and complex legal engagements. Not every Google opponent has the grit of Oracle to joust about Java. In the absence of meaningful regulation, Google’s logic is likely to keep those legal eagles circling in the hopes of digital road kill upon which to fatten themselves.
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2021
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
