麻豆官网首页入口

bbc.co.uk Navigation

Rory Cellan-Jones

Google: Power and privacy

  • Rory Cellan-Jones
  • 20 May 09, 09:21 GMT

A country club on the fringes of London has been the meeting place for all sorts of powerful and interesting people from all over the world for the last two days.

They included political figures like Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell, business leaders from Sir Richard Branson to Jean-Bernard Levy of Vivendi, media bosses like the 麻豆官网首页入口's Mark Thompson and Carolyn McCall of Guardian Media Group - and even royalty in the form of Prince Charles and the crown princes of both Spain and Norway.

Who could attract such a crowd? Google, of course. Its annual Zeitgeist event is becoming a rival to for movers and shakers who want to know where the most powerful business on the web is heading.

On the final afternoon, even a few journalists were allowed in for what seemed like a routine demo of products that many of us had already seen - like , the "structured data search" which might blow Wolfram Alpha out of the water when it launches, or Gmail Video Chat, which is already out there for anyone to try.

Then, without warning and just as the journalists were in danger of nodding off, two billionaires slipped quietly into the room, and we all perked up. Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, and Larry Page, the firm's co-founder, had come to answer our questions..

No, Larry Page revealed, he hadn't tested Wolfram Alpha yet, though his co-founder Sergey Brin had tried the computational knowledge engine - and, of course, any competition was welcome.

Google Video Chat was better quality than Skype and yes, "quite significant" numbers of people were using it - this was Eric Schmidt's response to my sceptical query about the product. Others wanted to know whether Twitter, now increasingly seen as a "breaking news" service by its users, was forcing Google to focus on real-time search.

Larry Page said that speed and relevance were Google's watchwords - the company even gave out stopwatches to its employees to stress that message - but he didn't seem too worried about Twitter.

One subject on just about everyone's mind, however, was privacy. A German journalist appeared particularly concerned that her house could be seen on - to such an extent that Eric Schmidt seemed eager to deal personally with getting it removed.

Street View is just one issue which is helping to crystallise the concerns of both consumers and regulators about the threat which the search giant might pose to privacy. But Larry Page, in particular, seemed determined to prove that he wouldn't let the business be shackled by such concerns.

To the journalists, and later to the whole Zeitgiest crowd during an onstage chat with Eric Schmidt, he enthused about a couple of Google geo-location products: and an application called Tracks, which tell your firends where exactly you are.

And, when asked about EU pressure to reduce the length of time that Google holds on to data, he had a clear riposte. That sort of policy, he explained, could make the data less valuable not just for his company, but for anyone wanting to predict events like a flu pandemic by examining patterns in searches over a long period: "I don't feel the public as a whole and the regulators have engaged in enough of a debate to know what the issues are."

Faced with the prospect of more regulation, guess what? Google thinks that that's a really bad idea. "Historically, when markets get regulated, the rate of innovation slows dramatically," Eric Schmidt told us."We don't think that's a good outcome - we think a better outcome is for us to use good judgement. We take what we see as the consumer interest as our guiding principle."

Google's billionaire bosses are amiable fellows, willing to engage with journalists on just about any issue. But as their company reaches into every corner of our online lives, they are bound to face more questions about how they wield their power. Telling the regulators that Google knows best what's good for consumers may not wash.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    I am never quite sure which seems more of a worry; journalists who seem keen on more than just referring to a personal experience in seeking action, or those in the public spotlight who think it's a smart precedent to get personally on that case. Especially as it seems to work out very well for all concerned. Well, bar the rest of us.

    Ah well, 'don't ask, don't get'.

  • Comment number 2.

    Normally, this would be headline news. Just now it seems a bit frivolous but it should get better notice. StreetView is very useful but also extremely worrying. Views of 'any' high street or difficult busy junctions are helpful and the people involved can hardly be surprised at a bit of drive-by, not-very-detailed photography as that is the nature of their lives. Having a camera appear in a country lane leading to nowhere and see it look straight in the window is quite another matter. The Japanese got very cross about the height of cameras and rightly so. Google needs to think very very hard about the difference between legitimate helpfulness to a mass market and niche interests that compromise the right to live a peaceful, private existence.

  • Comment number 3.

    I am very in favour of Street View and am dissapointed that my street isn't on it. I am frustrated by the luddites that keep trying to erase bits of it in fits of pique.
    As far as post 2 goes I don't see why 'city folk' are considered to have less privacy right than 'country folk' - if it's good enough for us then it's good enough for them also - after all you always have the zoom in google map, or multi-map or several others if you want to plan your break in and getaway of a country pile, Steet View is not the deciding factor!

  • Comment number 4.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 5.

    [Travelling1] - Is my right to privacy to be determined by my post code? No - our rights and obligations apply universally. If Google had a policy of discrimination like you suggest that would distort those universal rights, not protect them. If people don't like it, they can quickly remove their house from the site (click "report a problem", bottom left of the Street View screen).

    Street View is much more limited than being there in person. How many house numbers can you see on Street View, for example? If I want to invade someone's privacy, I can't find their house on Street View unless I know their address. And how does looking at a grainy picture of their house help me?

    Maybe it's a conspiracy to sell more Leylandii, electric fences and all-in-one house shrouds.

  • Comment number 6.

    Street-view is great; being an avid freecycler it's really useful to be able to virtually drive to my destination before i actually drive there. maps are good but SV gives a much better idea of where I am going, any landmarks that don't always appear on maps and allows me to get a better picture in my mind of the destination.

    I don't think there are any privacy concerns here, move along people - why not protest about the insane government we have instead - surely that's more important than someone seeing what colour bricks your house is made of?

  • Comment number 7.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

 

The 麻豆官网首页入口 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

麻豆官网首页入口.co.uk