First appeared in USA Today
An advocacy group went to court on Wednesday to block Google
from making a policy change that could lead to the search giant assembling
richer behavior profiles of people who use more than one of its popular online
services.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a complaint
asking a Washington, D.C., district court judge to restrain Google from making
the policy change on March 1. EPIC also asked the judge to order the Federal
Trade Commission to enforce a standing court order that prohibits Google from
misrepresenting its privacy policies.
"We believe Google went way over the line in a variety
of ways," says Marc Rotenberg, EPIC's executive director.
Google spokesman Chris Gaither indicated the company has not
seen the court filings. "We welcome discussions about our approach,"
he says.
Google recently announced that it would institute a new
privacy policy applicable to anyone using any of its popular online services.
The new policy would make it easier for Google to cross-reference users'
activity data culled from its most popular services, including search, Gmail,
Google Apps, Google+, Picasa and YouTube.
Rotenberg contends that Google is repeating deceptive
practices that got the company into hot water in early 2010 when it launched
Buzz, a new social network that was intended to be part Facebook, part Twitter.
Google piggy-backed Buzz onto the Gmail accounts of 176
million users of its free online e-mail service without asking their
permission. To instantly establish a list of Facebook-like friends, a Google
algorithm selected up to 50 of each Gmail user's contacts and designated them
as Buzz followers, akin to how Twitter users follow each other's postings.
A lengthy FTC deceptive practices probe of Buzz, sparked by
an EPIC complaint, resulted in Google agreeing to a consent order that
prohibits the company from misrepresenting its privacy practices. The company
also agreed to obtain users' consent before disclosing personal data and to
comply with a comprehensive privacy program, subject to audit for 20 years.
Google later also agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle
privacy invasion claims stemming from the launch of Buzz.
Rotenberg contends the same general privacy concerns sparked
by Buzz apply to Google's new privacy policy, which opens the door to the
systematic cross-referencing of users' behaviors across all of the company's
most popular consumer services.
"Buzz involved the combining of data from discrete
services and it gave rise to the consent order," Rotenberg says.
"This is about combining data across the entire Google platform, even
after they were made subject to the consent order. As a legal matter we think
it is far more serious."
Gaither counters that the company is not changing the
visibility of users' information, nor how it shares that information with
others parties.
He emphasizes that the company has undertaken "the most
extensive notification effort in Google's history to ensure that users have
many opportunities to learn about the changes." He insists that the new
policy "will make it easier to understand our privacy commitments."
Two Google executives made those same points in a closed
door briefing last week with 10 members of Congress.
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said he was disturbed by the
executives' answers to questions about users' inability to delete data from
sensitive e-mails or data that reveals visits to certain websites, such as one
with information about cervical cancer.
"It was obvious to me, as I left the room, that this
company has established this policy so instead of the consumer being the master
of the Internet, Google is the master of the consumer," Barton says.
"I think that is just wrong."
Rep. Mary Bono Mack, D-Calif., said Google's explanations
during the briefing lacked clarity. Bono Mack said she intends to convene full
hearings on Internet privacy this spring.
The FTC on Wednesday acknowledged being aware of EPIC's
court filing, but declined to comment specifically on it.
"The FTC takes compliance with our consent orders very
seriously and always looks carefully at any evidence that they are being
violated," says spokeswoman Cecelia Prewett.
