So, Google is the latest mega-massive firm to provoke ire over its privacy policy.
Because, as of today, that is what it is: a single, unified policy; rather than a scattered collection of three or four dozen different policies.
Now, I have to say I have no massively huge concerns about the amount of sharing that Google intends to undertake amongst its own companies. I do, however, have a bit of a concern regarding the logic and methodology.
Obviously there is no opt-out. There can't be. It isn't as with a piece of software where you can support two, three or four incarnations, gently nudging (and eventually forcing) people over to the newest version. No, because of people, politics, privacy and other such things as clarity and support, it must be an overaching and universal implementation, if it is to occur.
But ought it?
The argument offered has been that it is better for them to have a single, easily findable and understandable policy. But the problem is that a one-size-fit-all policy is not necessarily appropriate. Look at a few from the 'stable' of Google companies...
Search
Maps
Earth
Adwords
Google +
Blogger
Youtube
Gmail
Docs
Is the same policy really applicable across all of these?
You have 'free-access' sites, where you don't have to be logged in, it doesn't need to know who you are for it to perform its service, it just provides an 'added benefit' if it can relate, say, previous searches to what you may wish to find. But how useful actually is that? Google really makes its money from advertisers paying to be found when you search for terms, and not previous searches: my time there has passed.
And AdWords: when it knows what sites I've been to, it's not actually that useful. In the last week, all of the banner ads that have appeared on sites that I have visited which have been provided by Adwords have been for shirts and screws. A week or so ago I bought some hardware from Screwfix and some shirts from TM Lewin. Apparently, despite all the hundreds of searches I have undertaken, that is all they can sell me. But that's not the worse... or the best of it. Whilst checking my Gmails, the adverts were trying to suggest to me recipes for Spam. Why? Because I was checking my Gmail spam account - the folder that Google itself creates for any spam emails. Either Google or Spam are doing well out of this. I can't wait for them to give me a Viagra folder.
Obviously Google will say the new unified policy will help with this, that they will be able to suggest or advertise better when they can see my blog or videos.
Then there are 'free-plus' sites: sites which anyone can access, but they would love for you to have an account. So the Youtube viewer (though not uploader) can access what they wish without having to sign up, and create playlists for the session; but by creating an account they can save the playlists, subscribe to channels, and (apparently) suggestions and recommendations are more appropriate, though again, I have yet to see anything other than exactly the same half-dozen recommendations time after time.
And finally, there are 'access-only' accounts, which are - very necessarily - entirely private to the account holder. Such as Gmail and Blogger. The last thing you want is anyone else accessing these and reading all your private correspondance or holding out and posting as you.
Does a single policy cover all of these adequately? Can the same terms be applied overarchingly? Whereas 'account' to the Gmailer means one thing, to the casual Youtuber it means another entirely.
Now, one of the benefits of the unified Google account is the simplified sign-in. I have long bemoaned the various differing security requirements across bundles of website making it near impossible to remember usernames and passwords, and the single-sign-in of Google accounts really is a vast benefit; but is this really incompatible with each site being a separate, invdividually identifyable site? Does it all needed to be branded 'part of the Google family'?
These things are very difficult. Brand identity is so tempremental, and though you may try to establish one brand over another, your customers may be reluctant to adopt.
Let us take, for example, shopping centres. There are two big shopping owners: Capital Shopping Centres, and Westfield. Capital loves individuality. Each of their centres has their own name, their own style. You would barely even know it was a child of a corporation. Westfield, however, goes the other way, naming each as a Westfield, with a small sub-title to describe the location. Everywhere inside each of them is daubed with Westfield and sprayed with the red and white corporate colours and youvcould be in Westfield East or Westfield Stratford or Westfield Derby or anywhere.
But by adopting a unified brand, an identity, philosophy, standardsand culture people know what to expect. You buy a big-mac and you know exactly what you are getting whether here, in America or China.
But it doesn't always work. The people of Nottingham have long since rebelled against Westfield's attempt to rebrand the Broadmarsh shopping centre as Westfield (Broadmarsh). I don't think I have heard one person describe it as Westfield. And I think their frustration has evidenced itself with the disposal of the centre to Capital. Capital have performed an immediate u-turn, 'reidentifying' the centre, individualisng and repersonalising it as Broadmarsh. A lot of people are actually wary of big corporations and unless they can see the benefit of a unified identity they will resist it.
There are benefits of unified branding, of integration and any branding expert will be able to wax for years about 'enhanced perception' 'extended awareness and visibility' 'understand unified expectations' 'unified synergies' and such like, but they often forget about being British.
We love the underdog. More than that we like seeing people working hard and will reward people for it, a good-old rags-to-riches story. Hence why the Daily Mail does so well when it fills its pages with the undoings of benefit scroungers and alien invaders (well, immigrants). And hence why we love our local: we still know our pubs by their own names rather than the brewery which owns them. The Crown and Horses will have the name emblazoned big and bold across the front in gold letters, with a swinging sign picturing a fine ned proudly wearing his crown, and then in tiny letters somewhere you will see it tell you it's 'a Bingle and Burtle pub'.
Anyhow, I got distracted onto dichotomous branding strategies when in fact I was supposed to be commenting on the unified privacy policy. There are other ways than simply applying a blanket unified policy. The ends that Google wishes to achieve can be achieved simply by modifying its existing policies - if that is legal. And if not, then even minor amendments to existing policies would be illegal - it is the mere idea of sharing the information between the identities that people find objectionable.
And, despite being a solicitor, I'm simply not going into the legalities of it, because everyone else seems to want to, whether they know what they're talking about or not.
Because, as of today, that is what it is: a single, unified policy; rather than a scattered collection of three or four dozen different policies.
Now, I have to say I have no massively huge concerns about the amount of sharing that Google intends to undertake amongst its own companies. I do, however, have a bit of a concern regarding the logic and methodology.
Obviously there is no opt-out. There can't be. It isn't as with a piece of software where you can support two, three or four incarnations, gently nudging (and eventually forcing) people over to the newest version. No, because of people, politics, privacy and other such things as clarity and support, it must be an overaching and universal implementation, if it is to occur.
But ought it?
The argument offered has been that it is better for them to have a single, easily findable and understandable policy. But the problem is that a one-size-fit-all policy is not necessarily appropriate. Look at a few from the 'stable' of Google companies...
Search
Maps
Earth
Adwords
Google +
Blogger
Youtube
Gmail
Docs
Is the same policy really applicable across all of these?
You have 'free-access' sites, where you don't have to be logged in, it doesn't need to know who you are for it to perform its service, it just provides an 'added benefit' if it can relate, say, previous searches to what you may wish to find. But how useful actually is that? Google really makes its money from advertisers paying to be found when you search for terms, and not previous searches: my time there has passed.
And AdWords: when it knows what sites I've been to, it's not actually that useful. In the last week, all of the banner ads that have appeared on sites that I have visited which have been provided by Adwords have been for shirts and screws. A week or so ago I bought some hardware from Screwfix and some shirts from TM Lewin. Apparently, despite all the hundreds of searches I have undertaken, that is all they can sell me. But that's not the worse... or the best of it. Whilst checking my Gmails, the adverts were trying to suggest to me recipes for Spam. Why? Because I was checking my Gmail spam account - the folder that Google itself creates for any spam emails. Either Google or Spam are doing well out of this. I can't wait for them to give me a Viagra folder.
Obviously Google will say the new unified policy will help with this, that they will be able to suggest or advertise better when they can see my blog or videos.
Then there are 'free-plus' sites: sites which anyone can access, but they would love for you to have an account. So the Youtube viewer (though not uploader) can access what they wish without having to sign up, and create playlists for the session; but by creating an account they can save the playlists, subscribe to channels, and (apparently) suggestions and recommendations are more appropriate, though again, I have yet to see anything other than exactly the same half-dozen recommendations time after time.
And finally, there are 'access-only' accounts, which are - very necessarily - entirely private to the account holder. Such as Gmail and Blogger. The last thing you want is anyone else accessing these and reading all your private correspondance or holding out and posting as you.
Does a single policy cover all of these adequately? Can the same terms be applied overarchingly? Whereas 'account' to the Gmailer means one thing, to the casual Youtuber it means another entirely.
Now, one of the benefits of the unified Google account is the simplified sign-in. I have long bemoaned the various differing security requirements across bundles of website making it near impossible to remember usernames and passwords, and the single-sign-in of Google accounts really is a vast benefit; but is this really incompatible with each site being a separate, invdividually identifyable site? Does it all needed to be branded 'part of the Google family'?
These things are very difficult. Brand identity is so tempremental, and though you may try to establish one brand over another, your customers may be reluctant to adopt.
Let us take, for example, shopping centres. There are two big shopping owners: Capital Shopping Centres, and Westfield. Capital loves individuality. Each of their centres has their own name, their own style. You would barely even know it was a child of a corporation. Westfield, however, goes the other way, naming each as a Westfield, with a small sub-title to describe the location. Everywhere inside each of them is daubed with Westfield and sprayed with the red and white corporate colours and youvcould be in Westfield East or Westfield Stratford or Westfield Derby or anywhere.
But by adopting a unified brand, an identity, philosophy, standardsand culture people know what to expect. You buy a big-mac and you know exactly what you are getting whether here, in America or China.
But it doesn't always work. The people of Nottingham have long since rebelled against Westfield's attempt to rebrand the Broadmarsh shopping centre as Westfield (Broadmarsh). I don't think I have heard one person describe it as Westfield. And I think their frustration has evidenced itself with the disposal of the centre to Capital. Capital have performed an immediate u-turn, 'reidentifying' the centre, individualisng and repersonalising it as Broadmarsh. A lot of people are actually wary of big corporations and unless they can see the benefit of a unified identity they will resist it.
There are benefits of unified branding, of integration and any branding expert will be able to wax for years about 'enhanced perception' 'extended awareness and visibility' 'understand unified expectations' 'unified synergies' and such like, but they often forget about being British.
We love the underdog. More than that we like seeing people working hard and will reward people for it, a good-old rags-to-riches story. Hence why the Daily Mail does so well when it fills its pages with the undoings of benefit scroungers and alien invaders (well, immigrants). And hence why we love our local: we still know our pubs by their own names rather than the brewery which owns them. The Crown and Horses will have the name emblazoned big and bold across the front in gold letters, with a swinging sign picturing a fine ned proudly wearing his crown, and then in tiny letters somewhere you will see it tell you it's 'a Bingle and Burtle pub'.
Anyhow, I got distracted onto dichotomous branding strategies when in fact I was supposed to be commenting on the unified privacy policy. There are other ways than simply applying a blanket unified policy. The ends that Google wishes to achieve can be achieved simply by modifying its existing policies - if that is legal. And if not, then even minor amendments to existing policies would be illegal - it is the mere idea of sharing the information between the identities that people find objectionable.
And, despite being a solicitor, I'm simply not going into the legalities of it, because everyone else seems to want to, whether they know what they're talking about or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment