The PR machine at BP has picked up on a recent trend, which utilizes the Google AdWords service as a soapbox from which to launch a damage-control blitz.
Open another window and Google “BP.”
Odds are, you found this too. How about “oil spill”?
Same link? Me too.
Google AdWords is the moneymaking machine behind the world’s most popular search engine. This product selectively displays advertisements alongside search results, allowing advertisers to market to users already interested in specific terms. AdWords launched in 2000, and has since become more than just another billboard. By associating text advertisements with search terms, AdWords clients are able to deliver increasingly sophisticated messages to intended audiences—as BP is demonstrating right now. Never before has a campaign had this potential to target its message with such speed and precision–though that potential comes with a price tag, one that is subject to open bidding. In addition to advertising themselves in a more traditional sense, Google AdWords now empowers wealthy companies to command eyeballs searching for select keywords toward editorial content.
In September 2009, AdWords became a platform for PR damage control when the front page of the New York Times reported that New Zealand fisheries were overharvesting the hoki, a species known to most palates as the McDonald’s Filet-o-Fish. In response to this article, the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council bought up Google AdWords like new zealand hoki, hoki new york times, and William Broad (the author of the article). These search terms triggered links to a page refuting the Times’ accusations, and included emails from the Times science editor as well. Jim McCarthy of PR firm Counterpoint Strategies, who spearheaded this spin technique, has applied a similar strategy on behalf of the National Fisheries Institute and the Formaldehyde Council, in reaction to journalists’ criticism of these organizations. He seems to have started a trend by representing his clients with Google AdWords and links.
Not actually about fighting bad EULA's, but c'mon, xckd is always a good thing.
After doing this week’s reading, it’s easy to get the feeling that there’s little we can do to fight bad EULAs. And let’s be honest, there isn’t much–at least for the individual user. That said, recently there have been cases where popular services have changed their terms of service because of the public’s distaste for a few egregious terms within them. Remember earlier this year when Facebook changed it’s TOS to say that they kept the rights to your content even if you got rid of your account? People got mad, they complained, and Facebook caved and went back to it’s old TOS. Similarly, there was a situation last summer in which it appeared Google’s Chrome browser’s terms of service gave Google the rights to anything you sent through the browser–again, after people complained, it was changed. While these situations were hardly the same (it seems Google’s TOS problems were the result of a mistake, whereas Facebook’s seemed more deliberate), they share in common the fact that the problem was fixed after enough people complained about it. This of course isn’t an entirely satisfying solution, but it is good to know that if people get angry enough, companies do respond.
The other important step one should take as a consumer is to actually make some attempt to read agreements before clicking through them–even if it’s just a quick skim. While there’s not much you can do if you don’t like the terms (except perhaps give your business to someone else), at least you’ll be aware of them. And sometime’s you’ll be pleasantly surprised (I’m a big fan of Google’s affirmation of my intellectual property rights, something about which I never would have known if I didn’t read the terms). If you want to be extra vigilant, you could even check the EFF’s “TOSBack” site from time to time: it’s a site that tracks changes to various terms of service agreements (there’s even an RSS feed if you’re uber-nerdy). After all, someone’s got to notice harmful changes to these agreements in order for people can get angry about them.
Lastly, I’d be up for creating some sort of EULA hall of shame, much like the EFF’s DMCA takedown hall of shame. While there already seems to be a site that attempts to do this, it’s far from well done or thorough (check it out at http://www.eulahallofshame.com/). Such a site, if done well, would be useful in that it would draw attention to particularly bad abuses of licensing agreements. And, after all, ridiculing sketchy practices by companies is fun. Let me know in the comments if you’re interested.
In honor of Cory Doctorow, I’d like to end this blog post in the same way he has ended several of his about blog posts EULAs (and I can because Boing Boing uses a CC-BY-NC license, I’m giving him credit [Thanks Cory!], and I’m gonna go ahead and say this blog post is CC-BY-NC-SA, since I can’t seem to find a licence for the site as a whole):
READ CAREFULLY. By reading this blog, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (“BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Much has been made of the dangers of trusting all your private data to Google. Not only does the search giant host your emails and contact lists, but your entire search history, your blog posts, your documents, your YouTube videos, and even your phone records. In response to growing concerns as to what they might do with all your data, Google released the Google Privacy Dashboard this week–claiming to be the “first Internet company” to offer such a product. The official blog post explains:
Over the past 11 years, Google has focused on building innovative products for our users. Today, with hundreds of millions of people using those products around the world, we are very aware of the trust that you have placed in us, and our responsibility to protect your privacy and data. Transparency, choice and control have become a key part of Google’s philosophy, and today, we’re happy to announce that we’re doing even more.
The Dashboard aims to give users greater transparency and control over their data. Users log in to their account and can view exactly what data Google hosts from over twenty products. For each product, the Dashboard provides direct links to the privacy settings for that service. Google concludes, “The scale and level of detail of the Dashboard is unprecedented, and we’re delighted to be the first Internet company to offer this — and we hope it will become the standard.”
Given Google’s grand proclamations about the groundbreaking Dashboard, response to the announcement has been subdued at best. Advocacy group Consumer Watchdog has been one of the most vocal opponents to Google’s privacy policies. The organization said the Dashboard was a step in the right direction, but wanted Google to give “the ability to stop being tracked by the company and to delete information associated with their computer’s IP address from the Google servers.” One advocate added, “If Google really wanted to give users control over their privacy it would give consumers the ability to be anonymous from the company and its advertisers in crucial areas such as search data and online behavior.” The group suggested that Google added a “Make Me Anonymous” or “Don’t Track” button to each service listed in the dashboard.
Outside of advocacy groups, response to the Dashboard was mostly negative. Tech blog Mashable wrote, “Sure, it’s nice to have all these in one place, should you ever want to review all your private information stored at Google at once, but there’s nothing really new about this list; you could even call it a privacy-related compilation. Unfortunately, it’s also an unpleasant reminder of just how much data you’re giving out to Google (and other online services).” Valleywag noted, “But, really, it just scares the crap out of you. Google knows all.”
The Dashboard clearly was not received as Google anticipated–it certainly is only seen as the first step in the right direction. Will they allow users to remain anonymous and prevent data from being attached to their IP address? Will they allow users to instantly delete all their data from Google’s servers? Would they allow the police to subpoena access to a user’s Dashboard? Only time will tell how Google will live up to its promise of “choice and control.”
- Google Dashboard explained on YouTube.
- Check out what Google knows about you here: www.google.com/dashboard
Free Software has pushed itself into the spotlight with Mozilla Firefox and Linux. Businesses, while wary of its philosophy, are beginning to understand its usefulness. Google, notably, has tried to work closely with the open source community, as both an user and a contributor.
One of their most recent projects, the Android operating system for mobile phones, was built by Google and then released under the Apache license to the open source community. Android was initially met with some controversy, especially given its licensing. Instead of licensing under GPL, Google chose the Apache license, which allows for proprietary modifications be made to Android, so long as the copyright notice and disclaimer are preserved. Android was released in Q4 2008 and Google has since benefited from the work of programmers, who have developed ‘mods’ aiming to increasing Android’s functionality.
However, on September 25th of this year, one of the Android community’s most prominent ‘modders,’ Steve Kondik, received a Cease and Desist letter from Google. Steve Kondik had been distributing a ROM called Cyanogen, which was built from the Android framework. The problem lay not in that Kondik was distributing Android, which was open source, but that he was distributing Google’s core, but proprietary, apps, Gmail, Google Maps, etc. These apps were part of the “Google Experience” phones and were licensed through the phone manufacturers. Therefore, while Cyanogen could be continued to be developed and distributed, Google’s apps would need to be removed and anyone who installed Cyanogen would be left without them. Normally, this would be a minor issue. However, Google’s apps were central to the Android experience, with the average user expecting Google’s apps to come baked in. Without them, any development would be crippled.
Since, Google has experienced a tremendous backlash on the Android community. While everyone assents to Google’s legal right and its self interest (Google, in a blog post responding to the controversy, has stated that, ”Unauthorized distribution of this software harms us just like it would any other business, even if it’s done with the best of intentions.”), many insist that leaving developers such as Kondik alone is better for everyone, especially Google’s reputation among developers.
This issue has clarified the important difference between free software and open source. And while this issue may have hurt Google’s reputation or even dampened developer enthusiasm, it is important to remember that mobile networks remain extremely closed and manufacturers, as they tentatively take steps towards an open source platform, are another key part of innovation. Google’s demonstration of its willingness to protect proprietary software on this open system may ensure that more devices are developed for Android, thus increasing its relevance and hopefully its market share.
The resolution to this particular story has been predominantly positive. Developers, including Cyanogen, have formed the Open Android Alliance, which is dedicated to developing open source alternatives to Google’s primary applications. Kondik, himself, blogged on the Cyanogen site that ”[a] lot of people are helping to work many of these issues out, notably the guys from Google (Dan and JBQ) who manage the open-source project.”
Given the community of developers and Google’s private interests, conflicts were bound to happen. Yet, the compromise that Google has struck – making its rights clear while working the community – seems to be the right way forward. Android will continue to be developed in ways outside of Google’s control, but will nonetheless increase user usage of the internet and, by extension, Google’s services. And the ordinary customers, outside of the open source community, who have never heard of Android and know of ‘open source’ only as a catch phrase, will not care, so long as Android remains a good user experience. As stated in our Two Bits reading, “Giving away the Communicator source code in 1998 endeared Netscape to geeks and confused investors; it was ignored by customers.”
Recent Comments