Arms trade? Drug cartels? Now? Bring it on, Google

Arms trade? Drug cartels? Now? Bring it on, Google

Summary: After a Huffington Post panel discussion on Friday about Google's forays into policy and law enforcement, I spent the weekend thinking about Google's giant role in our lives.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Google, Privacy
10

Last Friday, I got an email from HuffPost Live, the Huffington Post's new live broadcast platform, asking if I could participate in a panel discussion on Google and its increasing role in things "not search", ranging from tracking the arms trade around the world to its overall dominance in our Internet lives. The question was, is Google growing in influence faster than our government can keep up and is it stepping into places it shouldn't? More to the point, does Google need regulation and how much are we at risk because of Google's influence?

You can check out the discussion here (ironically, conducted via a Google+ Hangout).

biggoogle

This panel discussion was particularly in response to Google's recent visualization of the worldwide small arms trade. Although this is, in part, a flashy, headline-grabbing showcase for Google's data visualization and web-based graphics technologies (Google has a page devoted to "Chrome Experiments", subtitled "Not your mother's JavaScript", of which the arms trade visualization is a part), it's also part of a larger effort at Google to influence policy and create change in the world through technology.

Along similar lines, Google Executive Chairman, Eric Schmidt, recently noted in a Washington Post op-ed with Jared Cohen (Director of Google Ideas), 

[The people of Juarez, Mexico] Have been overwhelmed by crime, their lives overcome with fear. They felt defeated, disillusioned and a little helpless. They asked us: What can we do?

And to us, at least part of the answer was obvious: technology.

And so began Google's use of their vast data resources and processing technologies to take on the Mexican drug cartels.

So is Google going where it shouldn't? Should this sort of thing be left to governments and diplomats? And what does it say about Google, our government, and technology in general that a private company is tackling issues like this head on and in new and innovative ways?

Personally, I say bring it on. Those governments and diplomats have been no more effective in stemming the arms trade, stopping the violence of the drug cartels, stopping the violence in Syria, or otherwise addressing global conflict than they have been in stopping hunger, AIDS, or human rights violations. If Google can offer a new approach that might actually incite action, let them. Look at Apple, even: What began as a PR nightmare for the company around labor conditions at FoxConn has turned into real, documented change in working conditions after Apple began public, independent monitoring.

Our discussion, not surprisingly, turned to privacy and the overall role that Google plays in our lives. The host asked, what if Google one day changed its slogan from "Don't be evil" to "Be evil". With all of its vast data stores (about all of us) and data mining capabilities, what would be the impact on us? It couldn't be good, right? Isn't this what the whole Google privacy flap was all about? Google Now, for those of us who have devices that can use it, already has an eerie sense of what we need to know before we ask.

Unfortunately for the one dissenter on the panel who called for utility-style regulation of Google, the panel was dominated by tech-savvy free-market Libertarians. He didn't get to say very much. And the consensus, as I've argued in the blog many times before, was that Google's contract with its users goes beyond its terms of service. It also runs deeper than the social contract we're supposed to have with our government (which grows more dubious all the time). It runs on profit. Google violates our trust in a way that really matters (so far, given its share of the search and mobile device markets, it appears that Google's privacy gaffes don't fall into that category), and it loses eyeballs on its services (and therefore, its ads). There is no better motivation to keep Google honest than the almighty dollar.

So give me Google Now. Give me every bit of information you can dredge up on the wrongs in the world. Expose corruption and oppression. Give me platforms for citizen journalists. Give me tools assessing the validity and value of information. Aggregate, curate, and synthesize. I need all the help I can get making sense of the world in which we live. And give me some credit for choosing to make use of all of these tools and not just blindly following the great and powerful Google. If better tools come along or Google goes rogue or our governments prove they can be as effective and efficient as the Internet giant, I'll happily (and swiftly) look elsewhere.

Topics: Google, Privacy

Christopher Dawson

About Christopher Dawson

Chris Dawson is a freelance writer, consultant, and policy advocate with 20 years of experience in education, technology, and the intersection of the two.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

10 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • fanboi speech?

    google is worse than those drug cartels...
    owllnet
    • No... it isn't.

      Playing it a little loose with our personal information is in no way comparable to the daily activities of a drug cartel. I guess rampant murder and kidnap for profit is okay as long as it's far away.
      tarscrap
  • Clarification?

    In your last paragraph you state: "So give me Google Now. Give me every bit of information you can dredge up on the wrongs in the world. Expose corruption and oppression."

    I fail to see how the visualization you cited about (visualization of the worldwide small arms trade) is an example of "wrongs" or "corruption"? Google's description of the data used is "government-authorized transfers" meaning all applicable laws were observed and followed.

    Mr. Dawson, is it your opinion that all firearms & ammunition should be outlawed?
    phillipc@...
    • If I were betting on it...

      I'd say yes.

      "I got an email from HuffPost Live, the Huffington Post's new live broadcast platform"
      waterhzrd
    • Firearms and ammunition

      cause a lot of damage to people's lives. The ones responsible are the ones putting them together in factories all over the world. They should not manufacture weapons at all, even if it means that these workers and their families will starve to death for want of money. Change society now. Stop forcing people to do bad things because they need to eat! No wonder surliness is commonplace.
      Graphic Equaliser
  • Very bad graphic

    It's difficult to figure the graphic out and it's not clear if the values are adjusted for inflation.
    devils_advocate
  • Look, if they didn't have Google...

    we'd use Bing or Ask or whatever...
    Graphic Equaliser
    • and Google Maps and Google++ and Google Earth and Adsense and Adwords and

      Trends and Correlation and Streetview and Commerce and Youtube and Gmail and and and and ... all neatly crossreferenced so they can predict a lot.

      Usually scientific models lack precision. With billions of samples the predictions become quite accurate.

      So if your relatives see funeral ads you should get worried. It's not a laughing matter.

      And there has to be no one as the "EVIL" person. An organisation consists of individuals with peer pressure to make selfish decisions for that organisation. But all their individual decisions for their company make a big force.

      And the lower ad revenue is the higher the pressure to analyse more and more and more ..

      And they obviously have a screw loose if they now see themselves as running politics. It's democracy. No one voted them. Yes theoretically the benevolent dictator is the best form of government. But who ensures they are nice forever?
      iniauk@...
  • Google "does no evil?" really...

    Christopher, your thoughts are well intentioned however you are mistaken on facts. Conflicts such as Syria's is instigated by powerful people associated with militaristic regimes such as the USA's. How else can a person with a lower standard of living that yours in a country such as Styria afford or just happen to come across a rocket launcher, tank or antiaircraft equipment for that matter. Even in the USA if you wanted to protest against your governments very draconian and fascist laws instigated against your freedom to move, associate and assemble as you wish, could you so as readily and easily as the disposed and disenfranchised Syrian? Most likely not. Once you realize the true agitators against peace and humanity are not the ones advertised or promoted by the media, your source for information then what will Google actually be doing by crating means to exposing more personal and private "information" promoting the status quote or actually revealing the truth? If the former then allowing that intrusion into our lives will not be for the better but further the case of those that lie, steel and cheat by whatever means against another group of opposing interests.
    mario@...
  • Real estate agent

    Hi,Really happy to deal with all the particularities described on your site as
    I am having lots of other problems to be discussable about real estate but after getting
    this information I am able to solved all the problem,So a lot of thanks.
    Real estate agent