The recent news that Google was ordered to hand over personal YouTube data by the federal court for the Southern District of New York was quite disturbing. While the viewing data for videos probably isn’t all that revealing or personal, it would be yet another step down and incredibly slippery slope for Google. However, the development was also entirely predictable. I’ve been saying for quite some time that disclosure of the massive amounts of personal data that Google has acquired (whether voluntary, compulsory, or accidental) is only a matter of time.

No matter your ideas or feelings about Google, I’m willing to bet you hold a slightly less favorable opinion of the government. But how long do you think it will be before Google is told to caugh up massive amounts of viewing data? Search histories have already been used in criminal proceedings (although it’s unclear whether the source was Google or the users’s own computer) so it’s certainly not difficult to see how the release of such data could be harmful and potentially damning for individuals.

Imagine for a moment that America was hit with another terrorist attack or a network of terrorists were operating within the US. Do any of you believe the government would think twice about requesting the IP addresses and any available info on people searching for or visiting site promoting terrorism? Or perhaps bomb making sites, or maybe even a recruiting site for the organization that claimed responsibility for the attack…

My point is, we’re not really all that far away from Google becoming the Big Brother entity that George Orwell wrote about in 1984 that people so often throw around when discussing issues of personal privacy.

Don’t believe me? Take a few minutes and for the following statements tell me whether I’m talking about Big Brother from the novel 1984 or Google, the “do no evil” search giant.

Is unavoidable in the media.

Controls the flow of information.

Tracks and logs the activities of individuals.

Claims to be for the betterment of mankind.

Is viewed by the public as a benevolent (yet incredibly powerful) figure.

Dictates people’s actions and determines what is right or wrong.

Scary isn’t it? Remember, “He who controls the past, controls the future.”

When I saw that Marketing Pilgrim had published a pic of Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin eating lunch with an apparently distraught Y! founder Jerry Yang, and asked for captions of the conversation I just couldn’t help myself. I figure the conversation went one of two ways…

or maybe…

It had to be one of these two right?

If you’d like to make your own version of the conversation, you can grab the original image here.

One of the media’s favorite Google related topics has been the work place and culture the company fosters in their “Googleplex.” Countless outlets have covered the admittedly incredible number of perks employees have access to from swimming pools, to bringing their pets to work, to being able to spend 20% of their time on projects of their own creation and creativity.

However, as Michael Gray pointed out today on Sphinn, Not Everyone Thinks Google is the Greatest Place to Work. The submission was an Economist.com article from August of last year that actually covered quite a bit of ground surrounding Google as the main topic.

However, within the story are several interesting glimpses into the ‘Plex that you don’t usually hear about from the media. This isn’t about riding segways or scooters to the meetings, it’s actually about the downside to Google’s culture.

The article first talks about a former executive that’s actually suing the search giant for the way she was treated while working there.

She started receiving detailed e-mails “enforcing” Google’s outward informality by reminding her that high heels and jewellery were inappropriate. Before the corporate ski trip, it was explained that “if you wear fur, they will kill you.”

Now obviously this is only one side of the story, but I’ve got to be honest, this type of behavior wouldn’t surprise me at all. Google absolutely MUST keep up the appearance of being this 100% positive, organic, amazing company that of course everyone loves because they “do no evil” and are simply making our lives better.

Not only that, but the perception they’ve built up about their working conditions helps them land the best talent in the industry.

However, before you simply dismiss the first quote as just the bitter ramblings of an ex excutive, consider another quote from an ex-Google employee (an Xoogler).

Another Xoogler, who held a senior position, says that by trying to create a “Utopia” of untrammelled creativity, Google ended up with “dystopia.”

It certainly appears that life at the Googleplex might not be quite the fantasy land we’ve all been lead to believe. Of course, Google’s not quite the company they portray to the general public so why should this surprise us?

As you may have heard, Google recently added functionality to their Google Trends tool that shows traffic data for most high traffic websites. I say “most” because there are a few sites that don’t display data in the Trends for Website searches… namely all of Google’s properties (google.com, youtube.com, etc.).

Naturally, Graywolf was all over this one and pointed out the problem immediately in his post Google’s Two Tiered Internet World Sinks to a New Low. Naturally I agreed with Michael but it wasn’t until Google representative, Matt Cutts, commented on the post that I really saw the full extent of Google’s arrogance on this matter. Cutts stated:

My personal guess is that given the brouhaha about Google metrics earlier this year (e.g. http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/04/21/why-comscores-google-paid-click…/ ), maybe the team wanted to start cautiously so that estimates on a Labs product wouldn’t be taken as hard truth or as some sort of forward-looking guidance.

In Danny Sullivan’s post on the issue, he quotes this official statement from Google which echoes the same sentiment as Mr. Cutts’ response above:

We have a policy of not providing interim financial guidance, and have decided not to release Google numbers in accordance with that policy. We are always open to reconsidering decisions we’ve made, but at this point, for these financial guidance reasons, we do not share Google numbers in the Trends for Websites tool.

To boil this all down, Google is saying that they don’t want to give metrics on sites they own because it could damage the company financially. And, as Cutts pointed out, we’ve seen some precedence for that. When comScores released their paid click estimates, Google’s stock suffered.

So, what we have here is a) Google stating that releasing this data on websites could financially harm the company and yet b) Google releasing that very same data (which could financially harm the company) for THOUSANDS upon thousands of other websites!

The Google apologists among you will argue that’s not what Google is saying at all and that they’re just looking out for their own best interests. But I’m sorry, not even Google can have it both ways. Either releasing this data is harmful to the companies that own these websites, in which case Google just flipped the rest of the online world the bird and willfully damaged an incredible number of websites and companies, or releasing the data would not be harmful, and Google has absolutely no excuse for keeping theirs private.

Either way you slice it, it’s evident that the whole “do no evil” thing died a long time ago.

I realize I’ve not kept up with this blog as well as I should, but the good news is, there are more and more stories revealing the truth about Google every single day. I think we are now past the tipping point and it’s only a matter of time before the facade comes crumbling down around that colorful innocent looking logo.

Anyway, I just wanted to pass along the most recent coverage of Google. Privacy International, a privacy watchdog group ranked Google dead last in their most recent study. While I hardly find that shocking, here’s an excerpt of their report.

In summary, Google’s specific privacy failures include, but are by no means limited to:

* Google account holders that regularly use even a few of Google’s services must accept that the company retains a large quantity of information about that user, often for an unstated or indefinite length of time, without clear limitation on subsequent use or disclosure, and without an opportunity to delete or withdraw personal data even if the user wishes to terminate the service.
* Google maintains records of all search strings and the associated IP-addresses and time stamps for at least 18 to 24 months and does not provide users with an expungement option. While it is true that many US based companies have not yet established a time frame for retention, there is a prevailing view amongst privacy experts that 18 to 24 months is unacceptable, and possibly unlawful in many parts of the world.
* Google has access to additional personal information, including hobbies, employment, address, and phone number, contained within user profiles in Orkut. Google often maintains these records even after a user has deleted his profile or removed information from Orkut.
* Google collects all search results entered through Google Toolbar and identifies all Google Toolbar users with a unique cookie that allows Google to track the user’s web movement.17 Google does not indicate how long the information collected through Google Toolbar is retained, nor does it offer users a data expungement option in connection with the service.
* Google fails to follow generally accepted privacy practices such as the OECD Privacy Guidelines and elements of EU data protection law. As detailed in the EPIC complaint, Google also fails to adopted additional privacy provisions with respect to specific Google services.
* Google logs search queries in a manner that makes them personally identifiable but fails to provide users with the ability to edit or otherwise expunge records of their previous searches.
* Google fails to give users access to log information generated through their interaction with Google Maps, Google Video, Google Talk, Google Reader, Blogger and other services.

As expected Google’s responded with their typical FUD tactics, generating a smear campaign against the organization. But of course, being readers of this site, I’m sure you can figure out the truth for yourself.

When you own an anti-Google site and Google makes a few very large and very evil moves, you can’t exactly sit back and NOT mention it. Even if you are busy working on your house among several other projects. So, here I am. Better late than never right? Anyway…

Unless you’ve had your head in the sand (or perhaps up Google’s collective hind-parts), you’ve surely realized Matt Butts’ Cutts’ recent posts on paid links were basically a declaration of war on paid links. Either you tell Google to devalue said links or else… Or else what we haven’t been told but Google (via Butts) has made it clear that they are taking large strides towards combating the practice of buying and selling links without use of the nofollow tag (which of course was just SUPPOSED to combat blog spam). While much has been written about this topic, by people far more intelligent and informed than I, I’d like to sum up Google’s motives.

First, they can’t identify paid links on their own. They’ve got untold numbers of well educated engineers and yet they haven’t been able to reliably distinguish paid links from real links. Unfortunately, they also know that thousands of webmasters hang on their every word and with just a few quick blog posts, they’ve stirred up enough fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) to get them no doubt tens of thousands of “spam” reports on paid links. Sure lots of innocent sites will no doubt be reported and possibly suffer from Google’s efforts to algorithmically identify paid links, and sure the people spending the most buying their way to the top of Google’s SERPs will continue to go unnoticed, but what do they care? Thanks to the brown-nosing Cuttlets that mindlessly do whatever their told, Google will have enough paid link reports to keep their engineers busy for the next 5 years.

Second, they are trying to make it impossible for sites to buy rankings unless of course… and stay with me cause this is the big one… they buy them from Google. You see, in actuality, Google has no problem with people buying their way to the top of their rankings. In fact, they make it really easy to do so. The catch is, Google forces you to pay a king’s ransom. Despite the constant stream of BS that flows from Google’s mouth pieces, they don’t actually care about delivering the most relevant results and they could care less about the users’ experience. You see, if they REALLY cared about those things, they wouldn’t place paid listings (ads) on top of their organic (unpaid) search result pages (SERPs). If they REALLY cared about relevancy, they wouldn’t simply charge advertisers more for terms they have a poor quality score for. They wouldn’t allow such ads to be placed. Of course, they DON’T really care about relevancy or their users. After dismissing Gevil’s er sorry (I’ve really got to get this keyboard looked at) Google’s reasons you’re left with the simple fact that Google is trying to force more advertisers and webmasters to use their AdWords/AdSense systems.

That’s it, plain and simple. There’s no higher calling and Google’s not striving to improve anything other than their bottom line. Google is once again F’ing* over webmasters under the guise of relevancy and improved usability. In the end, the only “search” Google has mastered is the search for the almighty dollar.

*FUDding of course… get your mind out of the gutter…

If/When this happens, please don’t say I didn’t warn you.

A box with words or pictures in it.

ThatÂ’’s what Google doesnÂ’’t want to see itÂ’s publishers using on their sites.

Unless itÂ’s GoogleÂ’s box… with GoogleÂ’s words… or GoogleÂ’s pictures.
Recently, Brian Axe from GoogleÂ’s AdSense team had an interview with Shoemoney about various AdSense topics, most of which centered on the current version of rules. Brian claimed that Google was actually loosening rules, allowing publishers to place contextual advertising on any page on your site, even the same page as Google ads, so long as they donÂ’t look like Google AdWords ads. If they do, you canÂ’t have them anywhere on your site, or youÂ’re in jeopardy of being banned from their program. I heard once that Donald Trump sued a guy because he had a store that sold playing cards and poker chips and card tables, and was called “Trump Card”. The Donald didnÂ’t think the guy should be able to use the word “trump” in that manner. I wonder if he can retroactively sue every inventor of every card game that includes trump cards? Insane, isnÂ’’t it?

It’s a lot like thinking you hold eminent domain over words in a box. Not special Google-sized boxes, but IAB standard boxes. With words. YÂ’know, like what youÂ’re reading right now. I have to assume this also means image ads. IÂ’m sure everyone can agree that pictures used in advertising is something that Google likely pioneered, and should rightly discriminate against any publishers who flaunt that rule. Brian asserted that Google does not intend to hinder competition or act in a way that would be harmful to itÂ’s publishers; that would be bordering on antitrust violations*. ItÂ’s because the AdSense team believes they have established a brand identity. Brand identity? Using IAB, worldwide standard box sizes and words? With the full range of the (as yet) free color spectrum?

Thank God four wheels, a box, and an engine weren’t considered a brand identity when Henry Ford was building his assembly line. Otherwise, a company like Tesla Motors would never be able to take their magneto/electrico pipe dreams beyond the drawing board.

This is my first salvo…

More to follow.

* I added the antitrust part. I’m sure they’ve been instructed to never, ever use that word in any communications outside the ‘plex.

Editor’s Note: I’d like to thank Robert Paulson for contributing to Gevil.org. I look forward to reading rest of your shot’s across Google’s bow. Also, as a quick reminder, if YOU would like to contribute to Gevil.org, please let me know via email at info[at]gevil.org. Thanks!+

A recent court case in Germany has apparently helped a few more people see the light about the true nature of the search giant.

“The woes don’t end there. Across western Europe, a quiet battle rages on between Google and Daniel Giersch, a German-born venture capitalist who insists he’ll never relinquish his 6-year-old trademark registration of “G-mail…und die Post geht richtig ab” (translation: G-mail…and the mail goes right off).

“Google’s behavior is very threatening, very aggressive and very unfaithful, and to me, it’s very evil,” he said in a recent telephone interview with CNET News.com from his part-time Los Angeles home.” (read the full article at CNET News)

Giersch apparently plans to follow up his victory in Germany with cases in Switzerland, Norway, and perhaps even in the U.S. If this story reminds you of the many different court cases filed against Microsoft in the 1990′s, it should. As I’ve said many times before, Google has become the tyrannical monster they fought so hard against in their infancy and it appears more and more people are willing to stand up to them.
Mr. Giersch, Gevil.org salutes you.

Yesterday we showed you a glimpse into the future of Google. The only problem is I don’t really see us using search, or computers for that matter, the same way 75+ years down the road. This video on the other hand… this could happen. Of course we’d never know what percentage we’d be getting nor would we require any oversight or bother to place any checks on the massive amounts of power we’re placing in the hands of a single corporation…. bah, just check out the video.