Skip to main content

User Expectations for Free Services

"Google, you have no right to track my searches!"

How many people have been saying that, especially since the whole thing with AOL "leaking" those users' search records? "Leak" nothing, they released them carefully as an opportunity for research, and we did nothing but attack them. They could have sold them, names and personal billing information included, without ever telling us a thing. What they did was perfectly within their bounds, just read your agreement with them.

Google seems to almost get more cruft about the whole thing than AOL. Maybe people just can't get surprised when they think they see something a company they never liked doing something they disagree with. People want to love Google, so they will get defensive about them almost to the point of taking it personally. How do you draw a line to the rights of users, when they do not even pay for the services being considered? Can we have any rights without being customers? If I asked you a question, do I have some right to demand that you take that question to the grave?

We are throwing an ever increasing amount of information we consider our own into free services across thousands of miles over unsecured channels, and we expect some kind of privacy and set of rights about how that information is dealt with. We have more than search history to deal with, because we're starting to replace desktop office apps with websites to entrust with our unpublished novels and family finance records. We obviously have a large trust in the services, but why do you expect this? Do we even have a right to expect that trust, or are we just delusional?

I do not care if Google tracks every site I browse to, analyzes it, locates patterns, adjusts my searches accordingly, shows me adds based on my browsing habits, or anything else they might be doing with the information. They are an ad driven company. They make money on advertisement clicks and I won't click on something I don't want to buy, so they have to do everything with getting advertisements in my face that I actually want to click, and that means it must be something I'm actually interested in (why else would I click?), so I'm getting as much out of it as they are. Google makes a quarter, and I finally found that great flatscreen TV deal that saves me a grand. Who is the winner here, and all I had to do was drop my pretension notions and enjoy a free service for its hidden cost: a little anonymous (outside Google) exposure and a few pixels of screen on the result pages. Wow, I am so winning in this relationship.

Amazon has been tracking your use of their site for years and doing amazing things with the way they cater to individual users, and there has been little fuss about it. No one complains, because they are too busy watching the movies Amazon suggested they buy. We have rejected the advertising the drives the economy for decades, but when it starts to actually be things we want to buy, do we even see an advertisement, or just a cool new album by your favorite artist? Advertising is meant to convince you to buy some product, and the best way to convince you is to find you already wanting to buy what they have to sell. You can't convince someone who doesn't want or need a product very well, you can just annoy them. That means getting rid of useless advertising is great for the consumer, and I welcome my personally tailored advertising.

Now, if only I could figure out why these amazing, personally specific advertisements were trying to sell outdoor equipment on my programming blog.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this. CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer.  One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC? It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on

The Range of Content on Planet Python

I've gotten a number of requests lately to contribute only Python related material to the Planet Python feeds and to be honest these requests have both surprised and insulted me, but they've continued. I am pretty sure they've come from a very small number of people, but they have become consistent. This is probably because of my current habit of writing about NaNoWriMo every day and those who aren't interested not looking forward to having the rest of the month reading about my novel. Planet Python will be getting a feed of only relevant posts in the future, but I'm going to be honest: I am kind of upset about it. I don't care if anyone thinks it is unreasonable of me to be upset about it, because the truth is Planet Python means something to me. It was probably the first thing I did that I considered "being part of the community" when I submitted my meager RSS feed to be added some seven years ago. My blog and my name on the list of authors at Plan

Pythonic Defined

Introduction Losing is Good Strings Dictionaries Conclusion Introduction Veterans and novices alike of Python will hear the term "pythonic" thrown around, and even a number of the veterans don't know what it means. There are times I do not know what it means, but that doesn't mean I can define a pretty good idea of what "pythonic" really means. Now, it has been defined at times as being whatever the BDFL decides, but we'll pull that out of the picture. I want to talk about what the word means for us today, and how it applied to what we do in the real world. Languages have their strengths and their idioms (ways of doing things), and when you exploit those you embrace the heart of that language. You can often tell when a programmer writing in one language is actually more comfortable with another, because the code they right is telltale of the other language. Java developers are notorious for writing Java in every language they get their hands on. Ho