Should Society Rely on Google?

 Technology is developing more each day.  We are becoming more dependent on search engines for everything.  We rely on things such as Google to find out information about subjects and even to make an income.  Siva Vaidhyanahan, author of The Googlization of Everything brings up interesting points regarding this issue.  She speaks about how Google is dangerous because of our increasing dependence on it.  Vaidhyanahan speaks about how Google disrupts every market or activity it enters.  It is so cheap and convenient it may cause us to miss opportunities to do things better. 

  This brings up an interesting question, should we continue to depend on Google?  I argue against this. You should not rely on a search engine.  An example of why not to would be to look at anadvertising company.  Advertising companies rely so heavily on Google which could hurt them.  Any time one company controls a large of a share of something as Google does their is always going to be concern.  You also do not want to depend on a company that you do not own to run your own business on.  Christian Russell brings up an interesting point to go along with this in Google is Gravy. 

First lets define the title, Google is Gravy meaning, Google is easy profit.  This is false.  Google is beneficial but it should not be relied on.  In his article Christian explains that yes Google does bring you good examples of things you are looking for and helps you learn things.  But you should not base your success on something if you have no control over it. Another thing he says is that it is good to get tons of traffic and make money on advertising while you can.  But........  Then he brings up the interesting question "What happens when google drops from their index...for whatever reason"?  What is your back up plan when something like this happens?  This is exactly why is is dangerous to depend on it.  In this case if your business is dependant on search results and advertising you are basically screwed!  Believe it or not this happens to many companies and people who are dependant on Google.  We should give ourselves the option and stay open minded incase something comes out that is better than Google. You should not rely on one search engine because if that fails then your out of luck.

Censorship in China: Everyone is Fair Game

In Rebecca MacKinnon's book Consent of the Networked, specifically in the "Copywars" chapter, she describes how certain internet sites are blocked by a country to their citizens. Using China as an example, MacKinnon talks about how this censorship is used to favor the government. Websites that have unflattering material or content that the government does not want their citizens to see are blocked. She goes on to say, "Politicians throughout the democratic world are pushing for stronger censorship and surveillance by Internet companies to stop the theft of intellectual property. They are doing so in response to aggressive lobbying by powerful corporate constituents" (101). Even though that occurs in the democratic world, it also happens in governments such as China. The strong lobbying by the government to limit their citizens' access to content on the internet goes along with the lobbying of corporations. The government is the "powerful corporate constituent" in this case. Up rises such as what occurred in the Arab Spring concern governments like China and they want to limit internet access to prevent the people from viewing anything that expresses displeasure in their views.

China's censorship knows no limits as any website is fair game to get blocked. A very surprising platform was blocked for a few days. As reported in this Wall Street Journal article, citizens of China were unable to access Google this past weekend. Google confirmed that it was not due to any failure of their own equipment. While the reason is unknown, this recent occurrence highlights China's ability to censor and restrict anything they want. The article also points out that The New York Times and Bloomberg News were blocked in China after they both released articles that documented how much Chinese government officials are paid. The conclusion of the article sparks intriguing debate about how doing business with China may be more difficult now because of Beijing's strict censorship laws. It is almost unfathomable that a service like Google, with all its applications, can be blocked to an entire population. Once again, this article reports just the most recent occurrence of the Chinese government using their power.

This article highlights MacKinnon's claims and descriptions about governments like China and the censorship power they take advantage of. No matter what the website is, even a powerful service such as Google, if there is anything that the government takes objection to, it will be blocked. Google is a part of many individual's daily lives whether it is checking e-mail, looking up directions, or just simply entering a search for information. Perhaps Google's ability to do anything is something that concerns China. The search engine's privacy laws are minimal and much of the internet can be found by starting off with a Google search. This kind of freedom is something that governments such as China will definitely continue to be concerned about as more people around the world gain access to the internet. Certainly, discussions about whether it is morally correct to censor citizens from worldwide material and the implications of these restrictions on global business are caused by this recent occurrence. In addition to those discussions, the most obvious takeaway from the article is that all websites are fair game. No service, however big and popular it may be, is too important to be censored by China.

Google Maps and the Continued Expansion

I could never imagine trying to drive to an unfamiliar location without Google Maps. Everywhere I go, I am continually dependent on the sheet of paper I printed out with turn by turn directions. If I feel I'm a little lost while on the road, I use my smartphone to help me out. Listening to parents and older adults talk about how they used actual maps seems like rocket science to me. Indeed, this new technology assists drivers tremendously in addition to GPS devices. With other applications available, why is Google the default service that the majority of consumers use? As explained in Siva Vaidhynathan's book Googlization of Everything, specifically the chapter entitled "Googlization of Us," internet users are becoming more and more dependent on Google. Whether or not this is a positive step for society culturally and morally, Google is simply the best and most comprehensive product to use. Personal experiences with Yahoo! maps and MapQuest have not been positive and the preference for Google showcases that other consumers share my sentiment. The new maps application for the iPhone 5 has been under heavy scrutiny for leading drivers in the wrong direction and for not including some streets that do exist. Regardless of the larger issue at hand, the better product always win. The better product is Google.

Google Maps and its Street View has set the bar extremely high for navigation applications. In this recent eWeek article, Google Maps and Street View are expanding even further. Pictures of the Grand Canyon will be included and Google Maps will include information about the terrain and vegetation of the land. The goal Google is trying to accomplish with all this new information is to present an accurate and easy to understand picture of the entire world right to the consumers' fingertips. MapQuest, Yahoo!, and Apple are no where close to achieving this type of product. The fact that those competitors struggle with giving accurate and up-to-date directions showcases what a difficult concept navigation can be. With construction, weather conditions, and traffic information all contributing factors, there is never one way to get to a destination. The amount of options available to the consumer and that the application should present is quite perplexing. The article also describes that Street View is looking to have 150 college campuses on file within the next year. Not only will this serve as a good tool to compare and contrast how different campuses look, it may eliminate college visits all together and totally change the game when it comes to college admissions. Endless possibilities are presented as Google continues its expansion.

Vaidhynathan presents an argument that today's internet user will not have a broad scope of the world because it will only trust what Google presents to them. While many cultural and moral issues arise from this "internet monopoly," Google has the best product. Attempts such as the Bing vs. Google challenge will need to increase if consumers are expected use any other type of internet platform. We see the same in the smartphone business as Samsung and Motorola want customers to know that the Apple iPhone is not the only smartphone on the market. Consumers will always gravitate towards the better product. As bad as it may sound, issues such as dependency and limited perspective are not the forefront of concerns for a typical internet user. The consequences of "Googlization" are unknown and so are the long-term effects. As of right now, my choice for searching content and directions would be Google because the consumer always wants to use the best.

The Convenience of Technology and its Cost

In Simson Garfinkel's article, "Privacy and the New Technology: What They Do Know Can Hurt You," the author goes through several realistic scenarios in which privacy is invaded by technology. Whether its using a credit card or allowing a smartphone application to view your location, it is possible to know what someone did all day without even having to ask them. GPS devices make it possible to keep track of a person and know exactly where they are. Garfinkel also elaborates on the cost of this convenient technology. He addresses this by stating "If we want the convenience of paying for a meal by credit card or paying for a toll with an electronic tag mounted on your review mirror, then we must accept the routine collections of our purchases and driving habits in a large database over which we have no control" (324). Basically, by giving all our personal information to these companies, there is no way of knowing where this information will end up. Spam emails and telemarketing phone calls are the usual result as these corporations try to reach out to customers. Garfinkel does not approve of this, claiming "This trade-off is both unnecessary and wrong" (324).

I disagree with Garfinkel's opinion. In a society and business world that is driven by convenience, customers are proving they are willing to pay a little more or give away their information for faster and improved service. People want their food delivered to them, so naturally one will pay a "delivery fee" for the convenience of not having to leave their home and receive their food at their door step. Using a credit card is a convenience as well. It allows a customer to receive goods or services without withdrawing cash from the bank and the ability to pay at a later date. An example of this convenience is that drugstores are now entering the grocery game. As explained in this ABC News article, drugstores such as Walgreens and CVS are now carrying produce and more food items in order to compete with grocery stores. This convenience does indeed come with a price though. In this MSN Money article, prices of various items are compared between several stores. While it explains that CVS had a much lower price than Walgreens for one particular food item, the cereal, it is important to note that you need to be signed up for the CVS rewards program to obtain that price. In exchange for that reduced price, the customer is giving CVS their personal information and allowing them to track what items they are purchasing.

While Garfinkel's claim is a nice little statement defending privacy, it is difficult to understand how these conveniences will be served without this trade-off. The information that these companies are obtaining from this data collecting is crucial to their success. They are receiving great feedback and data showing where their strengths and weaknesses are; what their customers like and don't like. The survey fast food restaurants encourage you to take and in return you receive a free item is not a fair trade. The company is receiving this important feedback in exchange for one free item. That's a rip off for the customer! Companies should be paying more for this insight and data collection. Allowing companies to track our purchasing history in exchange for better prices for us is a great deal. Companies should be giving away much more than discounts and coupons for access into our likes and dislikes. This is where Garfinkel misses the point. Customers should take advantage of this and demand more than just a free cookie or 10% off their next purchase for this information.

The "People of Walmart" Have Rights Too

            Siva Vaidhyanathan argues that although the Google service is easy and convenient, there are a considerable amount of disadvantages for the Web users.  Google affects users habits, opinions, and judgment because of the way the information is presented and ranked on the site (p. 2).  It also affects the use and distribution of users personal information. “Google makes its money by using our profiles to present us with advertisements keyed to words we search” (p. 83).  Our personal information is then targeted back at us through advertisements so they can promote items to users most likely to buy. This means that our information is being spread to others (including businesses) without our immediate consent.  Unfortunately this could open potentially shameful information or pictures.  Information that we did not even consent to may be shown to the public, our parents, friends, or teachers.  It is through the Internets spreadability and the ease of finding things through Google that creates a feeding ground for information.  Take the site People of Walmart for instance.

            Individuals who are shopping at Walmart are taking photos of other people there and posting them online.  The pictures are bizarre and what most people would consider, humorous.  They are usually depictions of what people wear or of abnormal behavior.  Most often it appears the individuals shopping do not know people are taking their photo.  Already we have a break in privacy because people have no say where this photo will go.  The pictures taken can either be distributed to Google specifically, or to any other website.  At the site listed above, there is a submission tab to upload such photos to the Internet. 

            As Siva Vaidhyanathan states, this is an infridgement of privacy because the individual has no control over information shared or their reputation of self (p. 93).  Also, because the Internet is such a vast source, anyone can identify someone they know, especially because their faces are not even blurred out.  These shameful images can change what the person’s parents, employers, or friends think.  The five major privacy interfaces begin to take a much larger role because survellience of that photo increases.  In addition because information is constantly being spread to different sites, the removal process of a photo can because quite daunting.  This may result in embarrassing photos continuing to circulate the Web and be seen by all.  Sadly, with “Walmart victims,” they may not even be aware they are on the Internet until someone they know stumbles upon it.  If you ask me, that is the scariest part.

How Google Street Views Helps Criminals

Google has come up with several different programs and services during the last couple years. Many features that these programs offer are very helpful and make life more convenient. But there is a program that divides people's opinions; Google Street View got criticized heavily over the last years. While many people argue that this program takes away people's privacy, its effect on the society is even worse because it can help criminals to plan their crimes.

David de la Peña, an architect based in Davis, California argued in Siva Vaidhyanathan's book The Googlization of Everything, "[Google Street View] is a very useful tool that I use regularly on community design and streetscape projects." This shows that Google Street View can be a great program if people don't abuse it for illegal purposes. 

If we search the Internet, we can find tons of articles where people sued Google because of pictures that Google took in their neighborhood. Most of the time, people want to sue Google because inappropriate or embarrassing pictures of them can be seen on Google Street View. Google taking pictures from people's backyards and neighborhood is without a doubt a serious violation of someone’s privacy. But it's not only about that people can get embarrassed, it is a much bigger problem that criminals can use this program for their advantage.

An article found on About.com is about how criminals can use Google Street View to plan their crimes. The program makes it possible for everybody to locate entrances to buildings, to determine locations of security cameras, to find good hiding places, etc. Google certainly didn't mean to help criminals with planning their crimes but they actually did. There is no easier way to exactly check out neighborhoods without having to walk around there in person. A burglar can check out a certain house for hours without anybody knowing of it and that makes the program so helpful for criminals.

There is also a guidance how to make your house invisible in Google Street View included in this article and I highly recommend doing this to people that feel bad about the fact that everybody can check out their house online.

Google Street View can be a great program if somebody would like to check out the hotel where he is going to spend his holidays, if somebody wants to know how his High School looks like 15 years after his graduation, etc. But the negative side of Google Street View outbalances the positive; many people don't think that far but it can be a big help for criminals to plan their crimes.